A Research-Based Approach

Contents

Overview............................................................................................................................................................................... 2

Introduction to Journeys Common Core................................................................................................................................ 2

Strand 1: Key Elements of Reading ........................................................................................................................................ 5

Strand 2: Teaching with Effective Texts to Meet the Common Core State Standards.............................................................. 19

Strand 3: Teaching Writing................................................................................................................................................... 26

Strand 4: Using Effective Instructional Approaches.............................................................................................................. 35

Strand 5: Assessment.......................................................................................................................................................... 49

Strand 6: Meeting All Students’ Needs................................................................................................................................. 55

Strand 7: Meeting the Needs of English Language Learners................................................................................................. 60

References.......................................................................................................................................................................... 63
 Overview
The Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Journeys Common Core program is a core reading program designed to meet the
diverse needs of today’s students, from Kindergarten through grade 6. It aligns with the Common Core State Standards,
and includes the key elements of reading instruction—from learning the alphabetic principle and decoding, through
comprehension of complex texts—and of writing instruction. The print and technology components, and the activities and
strategies presented throughout the program, are based on current research and best practice. The Journeys Common Core
program provides students with the skills they need to succeed, preparing them ultimately for the high literacy demands of
college and the workplace.
sophisticated across grade levels. In writing, students are expected to compose narratives, informational texts, and
arguments, which use reason and evidence to substantiate claims. In language, the Standards delineate expectations for
vocabulary acquisition and the use of standard English conventions and grammar. Expectations for research and skill with
media are “blended into the Standards as a whole” [Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI), 2010a, p. 4].
For states and districts, the Common Core State Standards represent the beginning of a new stage in standards-based
education. The Standards chart a course that must be supported with effective curriculum, instruction, and assessment. The
Standards tell what students should learn—but do not describe how students will learn; they were written with “a focus on
results rather than means…and must be complemented by a well-developed, content-rich curriculum” (CCSSI, 2010a, p. 4, 6).

The purpose of this document is to demonstrate clearly and explicitly the scientific research base for the program. The
program is built around what we know about effective reading and language arts instruction—in phonemic awareness,
phonics, vocabulary, fluency, reading comprehension, and writing—and what we know about how best to meet the needs
of learners through assessment and differentiation. The Journeys Common Core program integrates each of these research
strands into a program that research indicates will benefit students and prepare them for future demands.
With its focus on explicit and systematic instruction in reading, fluency, writing, speaking and listening, and language and its
Common Core-aligned assessment system, the Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Journeys Common Core program provides this
support for educators implementing the Common Core.

To help readers make the connections between the research strands and the Journeys Common Core program, each strand
includes the following sections:

• Defining the Strand. This section summarizes the terminology and provides an overview of the research related to
the strand.

• Research that Guided the Development of Journeys Common Core ©2014. This section identifies subtopics
within each strand and provides excerpts from and summaries of relevant research on each subtopic.

• From Research to Practice. This section explains how the research data are exemplified in the Journeys Common
Core program.

The combination of the major research recommendations and the related features of the Journeys Common Core program
will help readers better understand how the program incorporates research into its instructional design.

A reference list of works cited is provided at the end of this document.

Introduction to Journeys Common Core
The Journeys Common Core program was designed to align with the Common Core State Standards. These standards were
developed to chart a clear course from K to 12 to ready students for future demands of college and work. The Common Core
State Standards are:
• Based in research on best practices and content to prepare students for college and careers;
• Nationally and internationally benchmarked against existing standards;
• Rigorous, with the high-order thinking skills needed to be competitive in the 21st century;
• Written to provide grade-level clarity to educators, students, and families.
In English, the Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts & Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and
Technical Subjects are organized around four strands: Reading (Literature, Informational Text, and Foundational Skills),
Writing, Speaking and Listening, and Language. In reading, a balance of reading literary and informational texts is strongly
emphasized in the Standards, as is the expectation that the grade-level texts be appropriately complex and increasingly
In Journeys Common Core, students learn about words through instruction in vocabulary, spelling, language, and phonics.
Students read widely and respond in writing and discussion to the texts they read. They build deepening knowledge within
domain areas. This deep knowledge and focus on comprehension and analysis aligns with the Common Core focus on
students reading and producing increasingly complex literary and informational texts. The complex texts included in the
Journeys Common Core program meet the Common Core mandate that students read high-quality and grade-appropriate
literary and informational texts. To support those students who are not yet successful readers, the program provides
scaffolded support for struggling readers and English learners to reach the grade-level targets by year’s end.
Throughout the Journeys Common Core program, teachers are supported in understanding the Common Core State
Standards. Teachers are provided opportunities to extend standards-aligned student learning. All instruction and application
are presented with a list of applicable standards so that teachers can be sure the learning aligns with the expectations of the
Common Core State Standards.

2 3
 Journeys Common Core supports Common Core implementation for both teachers and students in multiple ways.
For teachers:
• Explicit, systematic instruction in the areas of reading literature and informational texts, foundational skills,
writing, speaking and listening, and language aligns to the Common Core State Standards.
• Journeys Common Core Weekly Planners are correlated to the Common Core State Standards.
• Lesson Tabs provide Weekly Common Core State Standards coverage at a glance.
• Online planning with the myPlanner offers a tool to integrate standards-based instruction for math, science and
language arts—with Journeys Common Core, GO Math!, and ScienceFusion all in one location.
• Journeys Digital online tools, which are integrated with the print products, provide interactive opportunities to
apply the Common Core State Standards.
• Correlation to Common Core State Standards provides both Key Citations and Additional Practice and
Student Application program references to ensure that teachers can easily see and plan standards-aligned
instruction.
• Narrative, Informative, and Opinion writing lessons connect to the Common Core State Standards.
For students:
• Journeys Common Core Domains and Topics that spiral up the grades help students “establish a base of
knowledge across a wide range of subject matter…” (CCSSI, 2010a, p. 7) that they need to meet the Common Core.
• High-quality literature, informational texts, and instructional content offer a wealth of opportunities for
students to learn and master the Common Core State Standards.
• Exemplar Texts offer rich, high-quality literature and opportunities for close reading and analysis that meet the
Common Core State Standards.
• Paired Selections provide opportunities for text comparison and deepen students’ knowledge about the Lesson Topic.
• Your Turn performance tasks support the Standards’ high expectations for speaking and writing about texts.
• Weekly grammar and writing instruction in the Student Book supports the Common Core State Standards.
• The Common Core Writing Handbook provides weekly writing support and resources.
• Common Core State Standards are shown at the point of use.
• Weekly Focus Wall shows weekly skills at a glance.
4 5
Strand 1: Key Elements of Reading
Learning to read is a complex
Defining the Strand task for beginners. They
The goal of reading instruction is to develop students’ skills so they can must coordinate many
cognitive processes to read
comprehend and analyze increasingly difficult texts. Meeting this goal
is a complex task. As the National Reading Panel (2000) concluded in its accurately and fluently,
seminal findings, learning to read requires developing multiple skills. including recognizing words,
constructing the meanings
Phonemic Awareness and Phonics—Students’ ability to comprehend
is dependent on their ability to quickly and automatically decode words. of sentences and text, and
Without sufficient skills in phonics and phonemic awareness, students retaining the information read
cannot achieve this. Decoding must be included in any effective early in memory.
reading program (Kendeou, van den Broek, White, & Lynch, 2009) and
is essential in meeting the needs of older, struggling readers (Chard, Report of the National Reading Panel:
Pikulski, & McDonagh, 2006; Moats, 2001). In the Common Core State
Teaching Children to Read
Standards, the expectations for phonics and phonemic awareness Reports of the Subgroups, 2000, p. 2-80
are included as Foundational Skills (K-5)—“necessary and important
components of an effective, comprehensive reading program designed to
develop proficient readers ...” (Common Core State Standards Initiative,
2010a, p. 15).
Vocabulary—Vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension are closely connected (Baumann & Kame’enui, 1991;
Stahl & Fairbanks, 1986; Stahl & Nagy, 2006). Vocabulary is essential to early reading development (National Reading
Panel, 2000) and in later grades, as the demands of content-area reading require high-level vocabulary skills. Vocabulary is
emphasized at all grades of the Common Core Standards (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2010a).
Fluency—“Working to develop fluent reading is important for fostering more thoughtful literacy performances” (Allington,
2001, p. 14). The ability to read fluently involves the automatic recognition of words, ease of reading, appropriate rate, and
expression that demonstrates comprehension. Because they spend less energy on decoding, fluent readers focus more
energy on comprehension (Allington, 2001).
Comprehension—The primary goal of any core reading program is to develop students’ abilities to comprehend texts of
varied genres and increasing complexity. Comprehension is threaded throughout the Common Core strands on reading
literature and informational texts. Focusing on the content of what is read, and asking students to make critical responses
to that content, has been shown to be particularly effective in enhancing students’ comprehension (Duffy, 2009; McKeown,
Beck, & Blake, 2009).
The Journeys Common Core program develops students’ skills in each of these areas, providing students with the building
blocks for success. In Journeys Common Core, effectively sequenced, systematic, coordinated instruction develops
students’ foundational reading skills—in phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension.
 Research that Guided the Development of Journeys Common Core
Phonemic Awareness
Phonemes are the smallest units of spoken language and phonemic awareness is the ability to focus on and manipulate
these sounds in words. Possessing phonemic awareness is a precursor to decoding, in that students who can isolate
individual sounds in spoken words can better connect these sounds with specific letters. The relationship is also recursive,
however; phonemic awareness supports decoding, and reading helps to develop phonemic awareness.
After examining close to 100 studies, the National Reading Panel (2000) concluded that instruction in phonemic awareness
and in phonics yields positive gains in early reading development, confirming the findings of earlier studies by Marilyn
Adams (1990) and Jeanne Chall (1967).
The National Reading Panel (2000) meta-analysis found that phonemic awareness instruction was effective at improving
the phonemic awareness, reading, and spelling skills of varied populations of learners at different grade levels. Results of
the meta-analysis showed that teaching children to manipulate the sounds in language helps them learn to read. Phonemic
awareness instruction helped all types of children improve their reading, including normally developing readers, children
at risk for future reading problems, disabled readers, preschoolers, kindergartners, 1st graders, children in 2nd through 6th
grades (most of whom were disabled readers), children across various SES levels, and children learning to read in English
as well as in other languages (Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching Children to Read, Reports of the Subgroups,
2000, p. 2-5).
What does research suggest are particularly effective strategies for teaching phonemic awareness? Activities to teach
phonemic awareness should include varied tasks, such as identifying words that share the same beginning sounds
(cat and car), blending sounds to make words (/f/ /u/ /n/ into fun), or isolating sounds in words (/d/-og) (Phillips,
Clancy-Menchetti, & Lonigan, 2008). Studies also point to the benefits of small-group instruction. Focusing on specific skills,
fewer rather than more at a time, is also effective. Teaching phonemic awareness with graphemes, or symbols such as letter
cards for sounds, has also been shown to be particularly effective. Effective phonemic awareness instruction can take a
short amount of time (Reading & VanDeuren, 2007), but should be presented in a meaningful context, so that students can
see the application and value of the skill (Cunningham, 1989). In terms of timing, phonemic awareness instruction should
be included in kindergarten and grade 1 (National Reading Panel, 2000), and any needed intervention should be provided
before students fall too far behind their peers (Schuele & Boudreau, 2008).
Phonics
In phonics instruction, the focus is on printed language—initially on the correspondences between letters and sounds/
phonemes, and then on applications to reading and spelling. A systematic approach to teaching phonics involves specifying
a sequence of phonics elements, teaching these explicitly, and providing students with opportunities to practice decoding words.
Research suggests that instruction in phonics is an important element in a balanced reading program. As described
previously, phonics instruction involves teaching students letter-sound correspondences and spelling patterns, and
providing practice on applying this knowledge to reading and spelling. Because phonics is the relationship between letters
and sounds, beginning readers need systematic instructional experiences with letters and sounds (Pikulski, 2012).
6 7
In its examination of 38 studies on instruction in phonics, the National Reading Panel (2000) concluded that students who
were explicitly and systematically taught phonics progressed more quickly and made greater achievements in reading;
“The conclusion supported by these findings is that various types of systematic phonics approaches are significantly more
effective than non-phonics approaches in promoting substantial growth in reading” (2-93). Numerous independent studies,
too, have supported explicit phonics instruction as an essential element of an effective early reading program (see, for
example, Beverly, Giles, and Bruck, 2009, on benefits of explicit phonics instruction with grade 1 students; Foorman, Francis,
Novy, and Libermann, 1991, on grade 1 classrooms with greater letter-sound instruction; Juel and Minden-Cupp, 2000, on
specific benefits of direct phonics instruction for grade 1 students with low literacy).
Phonics instruction is most beneficial when it is provided in a systematic, sequential manner. In their 2009 study comparing
systematic phonics instruction with a nonsystematic approach, de Graaff, Bosman, Hasselman, and Verhoeven found that
systematic phonics instruction showed greater effects in kindergarten students’ phonemic awareness, spelling, and reading
comprehension than did instruction in phonics that was nonsystematic. In terms of timing, research suggests that the
teaching of phonics is most important in grades K through 2, but instruction in these skills is also important for poor readers
in the intermediate and upper grades (Moats, 2001).
Vocabulary
Effective instruction in vocabulary must help students acquire the depth and breadth of vocabulary knowledge required for
access to the texts they will encounter and must teach students both the words themselves, as well as strategies to learn new
words. Research establishes the following as essential elements of effective vocabulary instruction:
• Direct and indirect instruction (Baumann & Kame’enui, 1991; Baumann & Kame’enui, 2004; Graves, 2006; Nagy, 1988;
National Reading Panel, 2000; Stahl, 1986);
• Multiple and varied exposures to words (Baumann & Kame-enui, 1991; Beck, McKeown, & Kucan, 2002, 2008;
Blachowicz & Fisher, 2000; Fisher, Blachowicz, & Watts-Taffe, 2011; Graves, 2006; Kolich, 1988; National Reading Panel,
2000; Stahl, 1986; Stahl & Fairbanks, 1986; Stahl & Nagy, 2006);
• Frequent instruction (Beck, McKeown, & Kucan, 2002; National Reading Panel, 2000; Stahl & Fairbanks, 1986; Stahl &
Nagy, 2006; Topping & Paul, 1999);
• Instruction in word morphology, or structure (Aronoff, 1994; Bowers & Kirby, 2010; Kieffer & Lesaux, 2007; Nunes &
Bryant, 2006; Templeton, 1989, 2004, 2012).
Research shows that while words can be learned incidentally, explicit instruction plays an important role in achievement
(McKeown & Beck, 1988; National Reading Panel, 2000), and may be particularly important for certain students. Research
has documented the disparity between the vocabularies of these students and those of socioeconomically advantaged
student populations (Chall, Jacobs, & Baldwin, 1990; Hart & Risley, 1995; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998). Without intentional
and meaningful intervention, the disparity in vocabulary knowledge between these groups only increases over time (Baker,
Simmons, & Kame’enui, 1995b). English language learners also benefit a great deal from explicit vocabulary instruction.
While English language learners tend to acquire social or conversational language vocabulary and skills through incidental
social interactions and conversations, the acquisition of an academic vocabulary requires explicit vocabulary instruction
(Francis, Rivera, Lesaux, Kieffer, & Rivera, 2006a). Struggling readers are a third group that benefits from explicit instruction,
making larger and faster achievement gains with the help of explicit vocabulary instruction (Sedita, 2005).
 Another finding that is consistent across research on vocabulary teaching and learning is the need for multiple exposures.
Words must be encountered a number of times before learning occurs (Baumann & Kame’enui, 1991; Beck, McKeown, &
Kucan, 2002; Biemiller & Boote, 2006; Blachowicz & Fisher, 2000; Dixon-Krauss, 2001; Graves, 2006; Kolich, 1988; National
Reading Panel, 2000; Stahl & Fairbanks, 1986). Providing multiple exposures allows for a deeper understanding of words—
their multiple meanings, uses, and connotations (Beck & McKeown, 1991; McKeown & Beck, 1988). The research of Beck,
McKeown, and Kucan (2002, 2008) supports these findings; “students who received rich, frequent instruction did better on
a variety of measures” (p. 77-78).
In addition to teaching words in different ways, the frequency of instruction in vocabulary is important (Biemiller, 2004;
National Reading Panel, 2000; Beck, McKeown, & Kucan, 2002). Providing many opportunities for practice has been shown
to be an effective instructional technique to support word learning, particularly among students with learning disabilities
(Swanson, 1999; Swanson & Hoskyn, 2001; Vaughn et al., 2000).
As Nagy and Anderson (1984) point out, the total number of words that students must learn is so vast that educators cannot
hope to directly instruct students in each individual word. Rather, teachers can teach students about words (Nagy, 2007),
providing them with a framework for learning other new words. If learners understand how words are structured, they possess
a powerful tool for independent vocabulary growth (Templeton, Bear, Invernizzi, & Johnston, 2010). To understand new
words, skilled readers make use of word parts (compound words, inflectional endings) and how prefixes, suffixes, bases, and
Greek/Latin word roots combine (Anglin, 1993; Bowers & Kirby, 2010; Templeton, 2004; White, Power, & White, 1989).
Because most new words students will encounter are morphological derivatives of familiar words (Aronoff, 1994), students
with greater understanding of morphology are more successful at learning academic vocabulary and comprehending
text (Carlisle, 2010; Kieffer & Lesaux, 2007). Teaching students skills in morphological analysis can be powerfully effective
(Templeton, 2004) and correlate with higher reading comprehension scores for all groups (Kieffer & Lesaux, 2007). A
recent meta-analysis analyzed studies that included morphological instruction as a treatment and found that it significantly
improved students’ literacy achievement and was “particularly effective for children with reading, learning, or speech and
language disabilities, English language learners, and struggling readers” (Goodwin & Ahn, 2010).
Fluency
When learning to read fluently, readers move from laboriously attending to each letter-sound association to decoding
automatically and purposefully. How well students recognize words connects to how well students understand
words (Allington, 2001; Pulido, 2007) because “fast, accurate word recognition frees cognitive resources for reading
comprehension” (Klauda & Guthrie, 23-24).
The connection between fluency and comprehension is well documented (Allington, 2001). Researchers found that grade 5
students who had the highest performances in comprehension also were able to quickly recognize isolated words, process
phrases and sentences as units while reading silently, and use appropriate expression when reading text aloud (Klauda &
Guthrie, 2008). In a 2002 study, researchers found a close connection between fluency and comprehension—students who
read more quickly and with greater accuracy also scored higher on the National Assessment for Educational Progress (NAEP)
reading assessment (Daane, Campbell, Grigg, Goodman, & Oranje, 2005).
Research suggests that instruction in fluency should be part of a complete reading program for all readers (Shanahan,
2006; Chard, Pikulski, & McDonagh, 2006). To gain fluency, readers must “move beyond accuracy to automaticity—and
automaticity is achieved only with practice.” (Samuels, Schermer, & Reinking, 1992, 136) Thus, fluency development
requires repeated practice (Keehn, 2003). Effective instruction in fluency, therefore, will likely involve increasing the amount
of reading students do (Samuels, 2002) and engaging in repeated oral readings (National Research Panel, 2000; Pressley,
Gaskins, & Fingeret, 2006; Samuels, 2002). Repeated reading has been shown to impact students’ word recognition,
reading speed, and comprehension (National Reading Panel, 2000). Repeated exposure to words leads to gains in fluency
(Jenkins, Stein, & Wysocki, 1984; Topping & Paul, 1999).
8 9
For struggling readers, particularly, explicit and systematic instruction in fluency is important. According to Chard, Pikulski,
and McDonagh (2006) “…research and theory suggest … [an] eight-step program for struggling readers [that] …
1. Builds the graphophonic foundations for fluency, including phonological awareness, letter familiarity, and phonics.
2. Builds and extends vocabulary and oral language skills.
3. Provides expert instruction and practice in the recognition of high-frequency vocabulary.
4. Teaches common word parts and spelling patterns.
5. Teaches, models, and provides practice in the application of a decoding strategy.
6. Uses appropriate texts to coach strategic behaviors and to build reading speed.
7. Uses repeated reading procedures as an intervention approach for struggling readers.
8. Monitors fluency development through appropriate assessment procedures.” (p. 48-49)
Comprehension
Reading comprehension is a complex cognitive activity involving many varied skills and strategies. While some students
learn to read—and continue to comprehend texts with greater difficulty—without explicit instruction, most students benefit
from instruction in reading comprehension processes and strategies.
Readers must use a variety of strategies—such as making inferences, asking and answering questions, visualizing,
determining main ideas and details, and so on—in order to make sense of the text. How best to develop students’ use of
these strategies? The Report of the National Reading Panel (2000) agreed with what reading teachers have known for years,
offering “enthusiastic advocacy of instruction of reading strategies” (p. 4-46). Research shows that to be most effective,
reading comprehension instruction must support students, directly and explicitly, with how to use the strategies needed to
comprehend a text (Cantrell, Almasi, Carter, Rintamaa, & Madden, 2010; National Reading Panel, 2000; Hollingsworth &
Woodward, 1993). Teaching students specific strategies provides them with tools to use when they do not comprehend.
Struggling readers often have trouble using such strategies (Dole, Duffy, Roehler, & Pearson, 1991) so for these students,
explicit instruction is particularly important (Nelson & Manset-Williamson, 2006). However, all students benefit from explicit
instruction, modeling, and practice using reading comprehension strategies—poor and high achievers alike, as well as native
speakers and non-native speakers of English (Alfassi, 2004; Baumann, 1984; Francis, Rivera, Lesaux, Kieffer, & Rivera, 2006a,
2006b; Klingner & Vaughn, 2004: Nokes & Dole, 2004; Rosenshine, Meister, & Chapman, 1996; Van Keer & Verhaeghe,
2005).
The high literacy demands placed on today’s students mean that basic comprehension is insufficient; readers must
engage in higher-order thinking. Research supports instruction in critical thinking, finding improved achievement
and transfer with improved critical thinking skills (Adey & Shayer, 1993; Haywood, 2004). Asking students good
questions—and teaching students how to ask their own good questions—promotes deeper comprehension (Craig,
Sullins, Witherspoon, & Gholson, 2006; Graesser & Person, 1994; King, 1994; Pressley et al., 1992; Rosenshine,
Meister, & Chapman, 1996). Writing about reading and making connections led to higher student performance than
a control group in Connor-Greene’s 2000 study. Biancarosa and Snow (2006) concluded that students who write
about what they read show more evidence of critical thinking.
 To help students to become critical readers, the Common Core State Standards encourage close reading of texts through Phonics in Journeys Common Core
Anchor Standards for Reading which include the expectations that students will ready closely, cite specific textual evidence,
The Journeys Common Core program provides systematic, sequenced phonics instruction. In addition, the program
analyze the development of ideas, interpret words and phrases, and analyze the structure of a text (for a complete list of
supports teachers in planning decoding instruction for their students.
the K-5 College and Career Readiness Anchor Standards for Reading see the CCSS, 2010a, p. 10). When students read texts
closely, they focus on and within texts—making meaning by the author’s use of individual words, patterns of ideas, use of In Journeys Common Core, young readers are provided with systematic
devices, and so on. instruction in phonics that meets the Common Core State Standards and the
best practices identified by research in phonics instruction. Kindergarten
In their study of what they term a “content” approach for reading comprehension instruction—in which the teacher’s
Student Books and Grades 1–2 Decodable Readers support early readers
attention was focused on directing students toward the content of the text and working closely through the text together—
with texts that they can decode. The program includes the Daily Phonics
McKeown, Beck, and Blake (2009) found that the content approach engaged “students in the process of attending to text
feature, providing students with regular instruction in and application of
ideas and building a mental representation of those ideas” (p. 219). Discussion-based activities have also been found
important foundational phonics skills.
to significantly enhance students’ understanding of complex texts (Applebee, Langer, Nystrand, & Gamoran, 2003).
Knowledge building improves comprehension as well. As discussed above, reading represents an interaction between
the reader, the text, and the task. As would be expected, then, numerous studies have shown the deepening students’
knowledge of the topic improves their comprehension (Graves, Cooke, & LaBerge, 1983; McKeown, Beck, & Blake, 2009).

From Research to Practice

Phonemic Awareness in Journeys Common Core
The Journeys Common Core program provides systematic instruction in phonemic awareness for early readers, and
suggestions for supporting the needs of older readers as well. The instructional activities in Journeys Common Core align
with the Common Core State Standards expectations for phonological awareness. Phonemic awareness is a key element of And whole-group Phonics and Decoding instruction—in which specific suggestions for differentiation, daily assessment
the Common Core expectations and a major focus of instruction in Journeys Common Core across the early grades. and Response to Intervention, modeling, and application are all provided—is offered at every level of the program.

Examples of Journeys Common Core Phonemic Awareness Instruction

Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2

• Add Phoneme (K-4: T389, T435)
• Beginning Sound (K-1: T212)
• Blend Onset and Rime (K-2: T13, T107)
• Final Sound (K-3: T201, T257)
• Middle Sound (K-3: T295, T351)
• Phoneme Blending (K-2: T295, T351)
• Phoneme Isolation (K-3: T295, T329)
• Phoneme Segmentation (K-4: T107,
T235)
• Phoneme Substitution (K-5: T107,
T153)
• Rhyming Words (K-1: T59; K-3: T46)
Daily Phonemic Awareness
See 1-1: T13, T16, T35, T45, T57, T67.
Phonemic Awareness Skills
• Beginning Sound (1-1: T13)
• Final Sound (1-2: T37, T47)
• Middle Sound (1-2: T233, T243)
• Phoneme Blending (1-1: T36, T57, T163)
• Phoneme Isolation (1-1: T46; 1-2: T69)
• Phoneme Segmentation (1-2 : T13)
• Phoneme Substitution (1-6: T13, T39)
• Segment Syllables (1-6: T40, T50)
Daily Phonemic Awareness
See 2-1: T209, T210, T231, T232, T241,
T242, T253, T254, T263.
Phonemic Awareness Skills
• Beginning Sound (2-1: T242)
• Final Sound (2-1: T16)
• Middle Sound (2-1: T13)
• Phoneme Blending (2-1: T207)
• Phoneme Isolation (2-1: T133)
• Phoneme Segmentation (2-1: T305)
• Phoneme Substitution (2-1: T334)
• Segment Syllables (2-1: T46)

10 11
 The following table shows some of the phonics skills taught in the early grades of Journeys Common Core.
The skills and concepts in phonics build systematically and are reinforced from Kindergarten through Grade 2:
Kindergarten
• Alphabet, Letter recognition
• Blending
• Consonants
• Decoding
• Short Vowels
• Long Vowels
For students in the upper grades who can still benefit from decoding instruction, Journeys Common Core
provides instructional support.
Upper-Grades Support for Phonics and Decoding in Journeys Common Core
Grade 3
• Base Words and –ed, -ing
• Common Vowel Pairs ai,
ay, ee, ea
• Compound Words
• Contractions with n’t, ‘d,
‘ve
• Double Consonants
• Final Syllables –tion, -sion,
-ture
• Homophones
• Long i Spelled i, ie, igh
• Long o Spelled oa, ow
• Long Vowels a, e, i, o, u
• Prefixes un-, pre-, re-, bi-
Vocabulary in Journeys Common Core
For a reading program to be comprehensive and effective at developing students’ vocabulary skills and knowledge, it
must take a systematic, purposeful, and engaging approach. The Journeys Common Core program focuses on three major
Journeys Common Core Phonics Instruction
purposes for teaching vocabulary: (1) To facilitate comprehension; (2) To build academic vocabulary; and (3) To teach about
Grade 1 Grade 2 words, including the elements that contribute to independent word learning. To accomplish these goals, the program
supports students through multiple exposures, explicit vocabulary instruction, strategies for acquiring new vocabulary, and
• Alphabet, Letter recognition • Alphabet, Letter recognition instruction in word morphology.
• Base Word/Inflections –ed, -ing, • Base Words Ending in –ed or –ing
-er, -est, -es • Blending In Journeys Common Core, each lesson follows a consistent format. Lessons begin with an opener, in which students are
• Base Words • Compound Words introduced to the Target Vocabulary words, which are identified in each lesson. At the beginning of each lesson, teachers
• Blending • Consonants introduce vocabulary, discuss the word definitions, use the word in context, and provide different opportunities for students
• Compound Words • Consonant Clusters to engage in word learning.
• Consonants • Consonant Digraphs
These same Target Vocabulary words are
• Consonant Clusters
reinforced further in the Vocabulary in
Context Cards, which offer students the
opportunity to engage with the target words
in different ways.
The words identified in Journeys Common
Core are backed by extensive research,
including a major study by Zeno and
Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6
colleagues (1995) in which the vocabulary in
texts, ranging from Kindergarten level texts
• Base Words and Endings • Common Beginning • Stressed and Unstressed
to college texts, were analyzed to establish a
• Common Consonant Syllables Syllables
list of over 17 million words. This list, along
Patterns (Clusters, • Common Final Syllables • Schwa(Italics) in
with lists such as Dolch’s (1948) and Fry’s
Digraphs) • Compound Words Unstressed Syllables
(2004) list of high-frequency site words,
• Compound Words • Consonant Alterations • Silent Consonants in
enabled the authors of Journeys Common
• Homophones • Digraphs in Multisyllable Multisyllable Words
Core to systematically identify the core academic vocabulary most needed for
• Prefixes Words • Base Words and
student success. These core vocabulary words are important so that students
• Silent Consonants • Greek Word Roots Inflectional Endings
can read at the high levels expected by the Common Core State Standards.
• Open and Closed Syllables • Homophones • Common Prefixes,
• Stress in Multisyllable • Identifying VCV, VCCV, Syllables, and Word Roots In addition to the Target Vocabulary, the program teaches students
Words VCCCV Syllable Patterns • Consonant Alterations Academic Vocabulary, Domain-Specific Vocabulary, and terms relevant
• Suffixes • Latin Word Roots • Common Final Syllables to reading/language arts study (such as Terms About Informational Text,
• Syllable Patterns • Common Suffixes • Consonant Alterations Terms About Literature, and Terms About Writing/Language Arts).
• Beginning and Final • Homophones
Syllables • Identifying VCV, VCCV,
VCCCV, and W Syllable
Patterns
• Confusing words
• Latin Word Parts

12 13
 For specific examples of some of the ways in which the Journeys Common Core program builds students’ vocabulary, see In Journeys Common Core, vocabulary strategy lessons are provided for each week of instruction. Vocabulary
these program pages: Strategies help students develop strategies to learn vocabulary words in the lesson. Strategies include
morphological analysis to align with Common Core State Standards such as:
Examples of Acquiring Vocabulary Skills in Journeys Common Core
Language Standard 3.4.c. Use a known root word as a clue to the meaning of an unknown word with the
Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6
same root (e.g., company, companion).
Daily Domain- Vocabulary in Vocabulary in Vocabulary in Vocabulary in Vocabulary in
Throughout, the program provides instruction and practice in applying varied strategies for learning new words, including
Vocabulary Specific Context, 2-1: Context, 3-4: Context, 4-4: Context, 5-5: Context, 6-5:
the following.
Boost, K-4: T13, Vocabulary, T116-T117 T206-T207 T14-T15 T316-T317 T88-T89
T31 1-4: T278 In Journeys Common Core Kindergarten, vocabulary strategies include:
Terms About Terms About Terms About Terms About Terms About • Alphabetical Order • Figurative Language
Oral High- Informational Informational Literature, 4-4: Informational Informational • Antonyms/Synonyms • Multiple-Meaning Words
Vocabulary, Frequency Text, 2-1: T136 Text, 3-4: T228 T30 Text, 5-5: T332 Text, 6-5: T106 • Classification/Categorization • Prefixes and Suffixes
K-4: T22 Words, 1-4: • Colors • Words Ending in –ed, -ing, -s
T224-T225 Apply Apply Apply Apply Apply • Context Clues • Words with Suffixes –ly, -ful
High- Vocabulary Vocabulary Vocabulary Vocabulary Vocabulary
Frequency Terms About Knowledge, Knowledge, Knowledge, Knowledge, Knowledge, In Journeys Common Core Grade 3, vocabulary strategies include:
Words, K-4: Literature, 1-4: 2-1: T151 3-4: T240-T241 4-4: T35 5-5: T337 6-5: T111 • Analogies • Homophones/Homographs
T26-T27, T35 T146 • Antonyms/Synonyms • Idioms
Vocabulary Vocabulary Vocabulary Vocabulary Vocabulary • Compound Words • Multiple-Meaning Words
Selection Words to Know, Strategies, 2-1: Strategies, 3-4: Strategies, 4-4: Strategies, 5-5: Strategies, 6-5: • Context Clues • Using a Thesaurus
Vocabulary, 1-4: T122-T123 T160-T161 T248-T249 T40-T41 T342-T343 T116-T117 • Dictionary/Glossary • Morphological Analysis
K-4: T35
Apply Domain- Domain- Domain- Domain- Domain- In Journeys Common Core Grade 5, vocabulary strategies include:
Enrich Vocabulary Specific Specific Specific Specific Specific • Adages and Proverbs • Multiple-Meaning Words
Vocabulary, Knowledge, Vocabulary, Vocabulary, Vocabulary, Vocabulary, Vocabulary, • Analogies • Prefixes
K-4: T55 1-4: T160-T161 2-1: T166 3-4: T254 4-4: T42 5-5: T344 6-5: T118 • Antonyms • Reference Materials
• Figurative Language • Shades of Meaning
Vocabulary Terms About Terms About Terms About • Greek and Latin Word Parts • Suffixes
Strategies, K-4: Language, Language, Language, 6-5: • Homographs • Synonyms
T61 4-4: T48 5-5: T350 T124 • Homophones • Use Context
• Idioms • Word Origins
Domain-
Specific
Vocabulary, The word study and vocabulary activities, designed by Dr. Shane Templeton, in the Literacy and Language Guide provide
K-4: T70 word study support for each lesson and a developmentally based approach to phonics, spelling, and vocabulary instruction.
The lessons expand and deepen students’ learning of target vocabulary and of morphological analysis.

Finally, each grade’s Student Book Glossary supports deep word-learning by providing students with information on word
Students receive the reinforcement and multiple exposures research suggests is necessary for deep vocabulary learning. parts, pronunciation of words, word definitions, words in context, and images.
The Daily Vocabulary Boost encourages frequent vocabulary learning. After Target Vocabulary words are identified and
repeated throughout the lesson, the same words are followed through into the Leveled Readers. Students hear the word
in a beginning teacher read-aloud, they see images that represent Target Vocabulary, and they apply the word meanings
through routines while reading the Student Book selections, the Leveled Readers, and the Vocabulary Readers.
Vocabulary in Context Cards offer further reinforcement.

14 15
 Fluency in Journeys Common Core Comprehension Instruction in Journeys Common Core

Shanahan (2006a) points out that “fluency instruction works best when it is part of a more complete regimen of reading and The Journeys Common Core program was designed to develop the kind of critical thinking skills that will serve as strong
writing instruction.” (35-36) In Houghton Mifflin Harcourt’s Journeys Common Core, fluency is built into a comprehensive foundations for the later demands of school and work. According to the Common Core State Standards, “students who are
and integrated program for literacy. college and career ready in reading, writing, speaking, listening, and language…work diligently to understand precisely
what an author or speaker is saying, but they also question an author’s or speaker’s assumptions and premises and assess
In Journeys Common Core, students’ fluency is built through instruction in decoding and word recognition, models of the veracity of claims and the soundness of reasoning” (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2010a, p. 7). Students
fluent reading, and regular opportunities for guided reading practice—with support and feedback. With each Teacher Read at work in the Journeys Common Core program are able to answer basic who, what, where, and when questions as well as
Aloud, teachers are given support to Model Fluency for students—and the Teacher’s Edition provides suggestions for higher-level how, why, and what-if questions.
elements to emphasize in the read aloud. Daily Fluency activities give students a chance to practice skills in fluent reading.
Students in Journeys Common Core further develop their critical response skills by writing about what they read, using text
Distributed practice for specific elements of fluency is given at each grade and progresses in complexity as students move up evidence to support their ideas and claims. The Student Book: Your Turn feature provided after each Anchor Text gives
the grades. students the opportunity to complete a Performance Task by responding in writing to what they read—as well as providing
the chance for students to engage in collaborative Classroom Conversations.
The Emphases of Fluency Instruction in Journeys Common Core, Grades K-6
The content of reading is important in developing students’ comprehension skills. According to the authors of the Common
Grade K Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6
Core, “By reading texts in history/social studies, science, and other disciplines, students build a foundation of knowledge
• Accuracy • Accuracy • Accuracy • Accuracy • Accuracy • Accuracy • Accuracy in these fields that will also give them the background to be better readers in all content areas. Students can only gain this
• Adjust Rate to • Adjust Rate to • Adjust Rate to • Expression • Adjust Rate to • Adjust Rate to • Adjust Rate to foundation when the curriculum is intentionally and coherently structured to develop rich content knowledge within and
Purpose Purpose Purpose • Intonation Purpose Purpose Purpose across grades” (CCSSI, 2010a, p. 10). In Journeys Common Core, the program’s organization around Domains and Topics
• Expression • Expression • Expression • Phrasing • Expression • Expression • Expression supports this essential building of students’ knowledge of different domains.
• Pause for • Intonation • Intonation • Reading Rate • Intonation • Intonation • Intonation
Punctuation • Phrasing • Natural • Self- • Phrasing • Phrasing • Phrasing
• Phrasing • Punctuation Pauses Correction • Reading Rate • Reading Rate • Reading Rate
• Reading Rate • Reading Rate • Phrasing • Stress • Self- • Self- • Self-
• Self- • Reading Rate • Word Correction Correction Correction
Correction • Self- Recognition • Stress • Stress • Stress
• Stress Correction
• Word • Stress
Recognition

Fluency assessment is a strength in Journeys Common Core. For examples of fluency assessments in Journeys Common
Core, see the following pages:

Grade 1, Cold Reads, Fluency Tests, 1-5: T51, T77, T151, T177, T253, T279

Grade 3, Cold Reads, Fluency Tests, 3-3: T43, T67, T137, T161, T321, T345

Grade 5, Cold Reads, Fluency Tests, 5-4: T44, T57, T122, T135, T194, T207 In Journeys Common Core students develop the skills and strategies to independently comprehend increasingly
challenging texts of varied genres. The following table shows some of the comprehension skills and strategies taught in the
context of the anchor text and practiced through close reading.

16 17
 The program provides scaffolded reading support with each lesson. Each of the Leveled Readers offered with the program
Comprehension Skills and Strategies in Journeys Common Core
is accompanied by an eight-page teaching plan to support readers in a small-group setting and includes critical thinking
Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 questions that encourage close reading. The program’s Write-In Reader offers additional support to students building
comprehension skills. Technology, too, is used to support students’ developing comprehension skills; the program’s
Skills: Skills: Skills: Skills: Skills: Skills: Skills:
Destination Reading® Activities are engaging, game-like activities with built-in feedback that are tied to the Journeys
• Author’s • Author’s • Author’s • Author’s • Allusion • Cause and • Author’s
Common Core comprehension skills and strategies.
Purpose Purpose Purpose Purpose • Analyze an Effect Purpose
• Author’s • Author’s Word • Author’s • Author’s Word Argument • Characteri- • C ause and
Word Choice Choice Word Choice Choice • Author’s zation Effect
• Cause and • Cause and • Cause and • Cause and Word Choice • Compare • C ompare and
Effect Effect Effect Effect • Cause and and Contrast Contrast
• Compare/ • Compare/ • Compare/ • Compare/ Effect • Conclusions • C onclusions
Strand 2: Teaching with Effective Texts to Meet
Contrast Contrast Contrast Contrast • Compare and • Dialect and the Common Core State Standards To build a foundation for
• Conclusions • Concl-usions • Conclusions • Conclusions Contrast • Dialogue Generalizations
college and career readiness,
• Figurative • Fact and • Fact and • Literal and • Conclusions • Domain- • F act and
Defining the Strand students must read widely
Language Opinion Opinion Nonliteral • Elements of Specific Opinion
• Main Ideas • Figurative • Figurative Meanings Drama Vocabulary • Main Idea and The selection of appropriate, engaging, and varied texts is at the core of and deeply from among a
and Details Language Language • Main Ideas • Flashback • Elements of Details an effective reading program. For students to be engaged—and motivated broad range of high-quality,
• Sequence • Sequence • Point of View and Details • Main Ideas Drama • P ersuasion to persist—texts must be appropriately challenging and engaging. The increasingly challenging
of Events of Events • Sequence of • Point of View and Details • Irony • S equence of inclusion of varied genres exposes students to the different texts they literary and informational texts.
• Story • Story Message Events • Sequence of • Sequence of • Narrative Events will encounter in and out of school and develops their reading skills with
Structure • Story • Story Events Events Pacing • S tory Structure multiple genres. As the Common Core State Standards’ “Note on Range
Common Core State Standards Initiative,
• Text and Structure Structure • Story Message • Story • Sequence • Text and and Content of Student Reading” states: 2010a, p. 10
Graphic • Text and • Text and • Story Structure Structure of Events Graphic
Features Graphic Graphic • Theme • Text and • Story Features
• Understand- Features Features • Understand- Graphic Structure • T heme Through extensive reading of stories, dramas, poems, and myths from diverse cultures and different time
ing • Under- • Under- ing Characters Features • Text Structure • U nderstanding periods, students gain literary and cultural knowledge as well as familiarity with various text structures and
Characters standing standing • Text Structure • Theme Characters elements. By reading texts in history/social studies, science, and other disciplines, students build a foundation
Characters Characters • Theme • Visual of knowledge in these fields that will also give them the background to be better readers in all content areas.
Elements Students can only gain this foundation when the curriculum is intentionally and coherently structured to
develop rich content knowledge within and across grades. (CCSSI, 2010a, p. 10)

Strategies: Strategies: Strategies: Strategies: Strategies: Strategies: Strategies:

Leveled texts, too, can play a role in preparing students—particularly struggling readers and ELL students (Short &
• Analyze/ • Analyze/ • Analyze/ • Analyze/ • Analyze/ • Analyze/ • Analyze/
Fitzsimmons, 2007)—to read the kinds of texts specified in the Common Core. According to Snow, Burns, and Griffin (1998)
Evaluate Evaluate Evaluate Evaluate Evaluate Evaluate Evaluate
“regardless of a child’s reading ability, if too many of the words of a text are problematic, both comprehension and reading
• Ask Questions • Ask Questions • Infer/Predict • Infer/Predict • Infer/Predict • Infer/Predict • Infer/Predict
growth itself are impeded” (p. 213). Finely leveled texts can provide scaffolding and build confidence.
• Infer/Predict • Infer/Predict • Monitor/ • Monitor/ • Monitor/ • Monitor/ • Monitor/
• Monitor/ • Monitor/ Clarify Clarify Clarify Clarify Clarify The use of engaging texts in varied genres, too, is essential. Inappropriate or uninteresting texts will disengage students
Clarify Clarify • Question • Question • Question • Question • Question from the comprehension process. Exposure to varied texts prepares students for the kinds of reading they will do in future
• Question • Question • Summarize • Summarize • Summarize • Summarize • Summarize school and work.
• Summarize • Summarize • Visualize • Visualize • Visualize • Visualize • Visualize
• Visualize • Visualize Throughout Journeys Common Core, students are exposed to the types of texts that will help them meet the Common Core
expectations and be prepared for future reading demands. Journeys Common Core offers appropriately leveled texts in
varied genres and with topics and themes designed to engage and motivate all readers.

18 19
 Research that Guided the Development of the Journeys Common Core program
Text Complexity
“The Common Core State Standards hinge on students encountering appropriately complex texts at each grade level to
develop the mature language skills and the conceptual knowledge they need for success in school and life” (Coleman &
Pimentel, 2011, p. 3).
The complexity of a text depends on more than a simple calculation of the length of words and sentences. According to the
Common Core (CCSSI, 2010a), three factors are involved in measuring a text’s complexity:
1. A qualitative evaluation of text must look at the levels of meaning in the text, the
structure of the text, the conventionality and clarity of the language, and the
knowledge demands that the text’s content places on readers.
2. A quantitative evaluation, which involves readability measures and other
calculations of text complexity based on word and sentence length and familiarity.
Q
3. A matching of the reader to the text and task, which involves considering such ive uant
tat ita
variables as the reader’s motivation, knowledge, and experiences and the task’s ali tiv
Qu e transfer to the other. For this reason, explicit instruction in multiple genres is helpful. Williams (2005) conducted a series of
purpose and complexity. Reader and Task
The texts that students encounter should increase in complexity across these three factors—qualitative, quantitative, and the
reader-task-text interaction—across grade levels.
Complexity matters. In its 2006 report, Reading Between the Lines, ACT, Inc. concluded that the main difference between
students who reached the benchmark score level in their performance and those who did not was whether or not students
could answer questions based on complex texts. Alarmingly, while the level of texts that students will encounter—in
textbooks, journals, and the workplace—has increased over time, few students have been prepared to read and understand
these complex texts (ACT, 2009).
To support students in reading these kinds of texts, the writers of the Common Core recommend a close reading approach in
which students and teachers work closely with the text (Coleman & Pimentel, 2011).
For some students, leveled texts may help teachers to prepare students to read more complex texts. According to Fountas
(2010), “a high-quality leveled book is your best tool for meeting readers where they are and moving them forward.” Leveling
assists students in learning to read (Clay, 1991). Matching the instructional activity with the learner’s level has sometimes
been referred to as the Goldilocks principle—activities should be not too hard or not too easy, but just right for learning to
occur (VanLehn, Graesser, Jackson, Jordan, Olney, & Rose, 2007; Metcalfe & Kornell, 2005; Wolfe, Schreiner, Rehder, Laham,
Foltz, Kintsch, & Landauer, 1998; Morris, Blanton, Blanton, Nowacek, & Perney, 1995).
20
Varied Genres
Research suggests that the approaches students take to reading and comprehending fiction and informational texts
differ, and that students need experiences with and instruction in reading both kinds of texts. A majority of reading that
students will do in school and in work is nonfiction. In an effective literacy program, students need exposure to high-quality
fiction and nonfiction texts. “Part of the motivation behind the interdisciplinary approach to literacy promulgated by the
Standards is extensive research establishing the need for college and career ready students to be proficient in reading
complex informational text …The Standards are not alone in calling for a special emphasis on informational text. The 2009
reading framework of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) requires a high and increasing proportion of
informational text on its assessment as students advance through the grades” (Common Core Standards Initiative, 2010a, p. 4).
Because classrooms today incorporate an expanded variety of texts, students need to be supported in learning how to
read across multiple texts” (Ogle & Blachowicz, 2002, p. 270). Content-area teachers lack the expertise to effectively teach
reading; therefore, the responsibility to teach content-area reading skills and strategies often falls to the English teacher—
who can use support him or herself in teaching reading of these kinds of texts (ACT, 2007).
Because the structures of content-area texts differ from narrative texts, comprehension strategies for one do not necessarily
studies and found that at-risk students were able to transfer what they learned to new texts when they were given explicit
instruction with a focus on text structure.
Engaging Topics and Themes
Texts used in the classroom should engage students’ interest and motivate them to continue reading. Studies have shown
a high correlation between personal interest and text learning—and these findings hold up “for both short and long text,
narratives and expository text, younger and older students, and students with high or low reading ability” (Schiefele, 1999,
p. 265). Students who are interested in what they are reading are mentally engaged (Hidi & Boscolo, 2006); in their study,
Guthrie, Hoa, Wigfield, Tonks, Humenick, and Littles (2007) found that “interest and positive affect for reading invariably
were associated with high cognitive recall and comprehension of text” (p. 306). The use of interesting texts has been shown
to increase students’ generalized motivation for learning (Guthrie, Hoa, Wigfield, Tonks, & Perencevich, 2006).
Well-written informational texts on topics of interest and fiction with interesting characters, exciting plots, and familiar
themes will engage readers. Other properties of texts that have been shown to increase student interest include interesting
topics (Schiefele, 1999; Fountas & Pinnell, 1996, 2001, 2006), appealing format (Schraw, Bruning, & Svobada, 1995),
relevance (Schraw & Dennison, 1994), and appropriate language and complexity (Fountas & Pinnell, 1996, 2001, 2006).
21
 From Research to Practice The authors of Journeys Common Core recognize that some students will need scaffolding to read and comprehend the
complex texts required by the Common Core State Standards. To help teachers in supporting these students, the program
Text Complexity in Journeys Common Core
offers Leveled Readers. These texts offer leveled support that aligns with the core instruction to all students:
In Journeys Common Core, students read the
texts they need to meet the Common Core State • Struggling Readers
Standards’ expectations for rigor and complexity • On-Level Readers
for grade-level reading, and teachers are supported • Advanced Readers
in helping students successfully comprehend and • English Language Learners
analyze these challenging texts.
Varied Genres in Journeys Common Core
The program is built around strong texts. Exemplar
Texts from Appendix B of the Common Core State Genre instruction is an important element of the Journeys Common Core program. The program includes texts in varied
Standards are featured at each grade level, hallmarks genres at each level as shown here:
of the rich, high-quality literature throughout
the program. Consistent engagement with these Genres in Journeys Common Core
complex texts gives students the opportunity for Grade K Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6
the kinds of close reading and analysis emphasized
throughout the Common Core State Standards. Big Book and Student Book Student Book Student Book Student Book Student Book Student Book
Read Aloud Genres Genres Genres Genres Genres Genres
Instructionally, Journeys Common Core prepares students to become Book Genres • Biography • Biography • Biography • Biography • Adventure • Autobiography
independent readers of complex texts by developing students’ academic • Fable • Fable • Fable • Fable • Fable Stories • Biography
• Fairy Tale • Fairy Tale • Fairy Tale • Fantasy • Fantasy • Autobiography • Fantasy
vocabulary and building their knowledge base.
• Fantasy • Fantasy • Fantasy • Folktale • Folktale • Biography • Historical
• Fiction • Folktale • Folktale • Historical • Historical • Fairytale Fiction
The program also provides scaffolding to support readers—through guided
• Folktale • Informational • Historical Fiction Fiction • Historical • Informational
questioning, vocabulary support, strategy instruction, and discussion of the • Informational Text Fiction • Humorous • Informational Fiction Text
elements and structures of the genre. Program features such as Think Through Text • Play • Humorous Fiction Text • Humorous • Literary Nonfiction
the Text help readers focus on close reading and supporting ideas with text • Narrative • Poetry Fiction • Informational • Myth Fiction • Myth
evidence. Instructional suggestions are provided for students’ first and second Nonfiction • Readers’ • Informational Text • Narrative • Informational • Realistic Fiction
readings of the text—as well as for students reading independently. • Poetry Theater Text • Legend Nonfiction Text • Science Fiction
• Realistic • Realistic • Mystery • Myth • Play • Myth
Fiction Fiction • Narrative • Narrative • Poetry • Narrative
• Science Fiction Nonfiction Nonfiction • Readers’ Nonfiction
• Play • Play Theater • Persuasive Text
• Poetry • Poetry • Realistic • Play
Teachers are provided with information about the complexity of texts so that they • Readers’ • Realistic Fiction • Poetry
Theater Fiction • Science Fiction • Readers’
can consider both qualitative and quantitative measures of text complexity as they
• Realistic • Trickster Tale • Tall Tale Theater
prepare to teach from the texts. The program’s Text Complexity Rubric provides Fiction • Realistic
teachers with information about the text’s structure, language, knowledge Fiction
demands, purpose/levels of meaning, Lexile, and Guided Reading Level. • Science Fiction
• Technical Text

22 23
 The program’s Reading Adventures Magazine includes additional genres and opportunities for students to engage in genre Engaging Topics in Journeys Common Core
study. Reading Adventures Magazine genres include:
The reading materials in Journeys Common Core were selected and written with the purpose of engaging young readers.
The literary and informational texts offer engaging stories, as well as narrative and expository texts about interesting topics.
Genres in the Journeys Common Core Program Reading Adventures Magazine
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 In Kindergarten, for example, the program’s Big Books include classics and favorites including The Hare and the Tortoise,
Kitten’s First Full Moon, Miss Bindergarten Celebrates the Last Day of Kindergarten, Sheep Take a Hike, Stone Soup, The Three Billy
Magazine Genres Magazine Genres Magazine Genres Magazine Genres Goats Gruff, and many more.
• Biography • Fable • Expository Nonfiction • Informational Text
• Drama • Informational Text • Informational Text • Realistic Fiction In addition, texts in Journeys Common Core are organized around domains and lesson topics selected to engage students
• Folktale • Persuasive Essay • Myth • Poetry and build their knowledge base.
• Informational Text • Photo Essay • Play • Readers’ Theater
For example, at Grade 5, Lesson Topics include:
• Journal Entry • Poetry • Poetry • Mystery
• Narrative Nonfiction • Realistic Fiction • Readers’ Theater • Folktale
• Nonfiction Article • Realistic Fiction
• Adaptations and Instinct • Language and Expression
• Poetry
• African American History • Life on the Battlefield
• Photo Essay
• Animal Behaviors • Life Science
• Realistic Fiction
• Archaeology • Patriotism
• Community Involvement • Performance and Visual Arts
• Conservation • Physical Fitness
Research has shown that explicitly teaching the structures of a text—in this study, story structures—improves students’ • Courage • Pioneers
comprehension and recall (Stevens, Van Meter, & Warcholak, 2010). Aligning with this stream of research, the program • Creative Inventions • Poetry
provides instruction for students on genre characteristics and in the Teacher’s Edition, provides instruction, critical • Creative Writing • Politics
thinking questions, and other activities to assist teachers in teaching about genre effectively. The questions and instruction • Early American Government • Responsibility
provided can be used over and over across the year as students encounter different genres and increasingly difficult texts • Encounters with Nature • Traditions
within a certain genre. • Experiments • Visual Arts
• Exploration • The West
Attention to varied genres—and to literacy across the content areas—is an emphasis of the Common Core State Standards • Extreme Environments • Wild Animals
and is reinforced throughout Journeys Common Core. • Human-Animal Interaction • World Travel
• Independence

24 25
 We have long known that the
amount of reading and writing
Strand 3: Teaching Writing children do is directly related to
Defining the Strand how well they read and write. Distribution of the Communicative Purposes by Grade
Classrooms in which all the 2011 NAEP Writing Framework
Effective communication has been identified by the Partnership for
21st Century Skills (2009) as essential for 21st century learning and students learned to read and Grade To Persuade To Explain To Convey Experience
success. Yet, the National Commission on Writing (2003) found that write are classrooms in which 4 30% 35% 35%
most students do not possess the writing skills they need. It is clear that the teachers gave more than 8 35% 35% 30%
writing must take a central place in instruction. ‘lip service’ to the importance
12 40% 40% 20%
of actually engaging in reading
Writing can help students shape and clarify their learning, strengthen
their thinking, and act as a tool for content-area learning (Perkins 1992; and writing. They planned
their time so that children did Writing in Varied Genres
Prain, 2006; Shanahan, 2004; Sperling & Freedman, 2001). In the
Common Core State Standards, writing is one of the four strands that a lot of reading and writing The ability to think and write across disciplines is needed (Atwell, 1989) to meet 21st century demands that require that
provide the framework for the Standards for English language arts. In throughout the day—not just students become proficient writers able to flexibly adapt their writing to varied genres and contexts. The Common Core
grades K-5, the “Note on the Range and Content of Student Writing” in the 100 minutes set aside for State Standards reflect this demand and expect that students will gain proficiency in writing across genres—including
states that: narratives, informative and expository texts, and arguments. As a result, instruction in the varied forms of writing and their
reading and language arts.
structures is important, as students are not equally familiar with all genres of writing (Downing, 1995; Lenski & Johns, 2000).
To build a foundation for college and career readiness, In genre study, students who are exposed to different genres in reading and as models are able to analyze these examples
students need to learn to use writing as a way of offering Cunningham & Allington, 2007, p. 7 and “to emulate the critical elements, patterns, and forms embodied in the models in their own writing” (Graham & Perin,
and supporting opinions, demonstrating understanding 2007, p. 20).
of the subjects they are studying, and conveying real and
imagined experiences and events. (CCSSI, 2010a, p. 18) In a synthesis of research on effective instructional strategies for teaching writing in the elementary grades, Chapman (2006)
concluded that an emphasis on both process and product is essential for developing writers with the skills and flexibility
Reading and writing are connected—at the word level (word recognition, spelling) and at the text level (comprehension, to produce varied genres. One essential to effective writing instruction is “directing attention to textual features…to help
composition) (Berninger, Abbott, Abbott, Graham, & Richards, 2002). Reading and writing share a bidirectional children develop ‘genre awareness’...” (p. 39).
relationship—writing instruction improves reading comprehension and reading instruction improves composition
(Shanahan, 2006). Students who write about what they read show more evidence of critical thinking, and students who Writing instruction is particularly effective when teachers sequence the modes of writing according to their connection
read show improved composition (Biancarosa & Snow, 2006). Integrating reading and writing has been shown to increase or immediacy to the writer (Langer, 1986a; Moffett, 1965, 1981, 1983). For this reason, beginning with personal
word learning (Baker, Simmons, & Kame’enui, 1995b; Klesius & Searls, 1991); support ELL students (Francis, Rivera, Lesaux, writing—descriptive and narrative—engages students who are then ready to develop informational pieces, which require
Kieffer, & Rivera, 2006a); improve revision (MacArthur, 2007); and positively impact students’ independent writing quality investigation, and finally to more cognitively challenging persuasive or argumentative writing (Moffett, 1981, 1983). While a
(Corden, 2007). thoughtful sequence of instruction supports students with these varied genres, this is not to suggest that all students are not
capable of writing in different genres. Research demonstrates that young writers and struggling older writers can learn to
Journeys Common Core effectively develops students’ skills in writing, to build the foundations identified by the Common write in varied types of genres (Harris, Graham, & Mason, 2006).
Core. The program integrates reading and writing instruction throughout each level. In Journeys Common Core, grammar
and writing instruction occur every day. Engaging students in a variety of meaningful writing activities has been shown to improve their writing skills. In their analysis
of NAEP data, Applebee and Langer (2006) found a correlation between the quality of students writing and the types of
Research that Guided the Development of Journeys Common Core writing they had been assigned to do in the classroom.
Writing for a Purpose
Grammar Instruction
For students to develop the writing skills they will need in their future academic and work experiences, they must learn to
While regular writing improves overall writing ability (Ball, 2006), instruction in the varied elements of quality writing,
write for varied meaningful and useful purposes (Kiuhara, Graham, & Hawken, 2009; Applebee & Langer, 2006).
including grammar, must take place if students are going to be competent and effective communicators. Such instruction is
Researchers have identified writing to persuade, to inform, to describe, and to convey research findings as essential most beneficial and effective when presented as part of writing assignments and activities that are meaningful to students
purposes for writing for success in school and work (ACT, 2005; National Commission on Writing, 2005; National (Fearn & Farnan, 2005; Hillocks, 1986; Polette, 2008; Weaver, 1997). Students who are taught grammar when working on a
Commission on Writing, 2004). The 2011 NAEP framework (National Assessment Governing Board, 2010) and the Common specific piece of writing show a greater application than do those students taught grammar as a separate activity (Calkins,
Core State Standards (Common Core Standards Initiative, 2010a) both highlight the need for students to produce texts 1994; Spandel, 2001). In grammar study, connections to the context of authentic writing help students better write and edit
for varied purposes. In NAEP, at the elementary level, students are asked to write to persuade, to explain, and to convey their own work (Hillocks, 1986; Weaver, 1997).
experience.
26 27
 Some specific instructional techniques have been shown by research to be particularly effective in improving students’ From Research to Practice
writing. In Writing Next, Graham and Perin (2007) identified sentence combining as one of the 11 effective, research-based
Writing for a Purpose in Journeys Common Core
elements or strategies. The sentence-combining approach has been shown to be effective with elementary school students
(Saddler & Graham, 2005) and English language learners (Francis, Rivera, Lesaux, Kieffer, & Rivera, 2006b). Throughout the Student Book students have the opportunity to engage in writing for various purposes through the
program’s different regular features.
Because learning in grammar and usage does not follow a sequential path, “the [Common Core] Standards account for the
recursive, ongoing nature of grammatical knowledge in two ways. First, the Standards return to certain important language In the Student Book: Your Turn feature included
topics in higher grades at greater levels of sophistication…Second, the Standards identify with an asterisk (*) certain skills after each Anchor Text, students complete a
and understandings that students are to be introduced to in basic ways at lower grades but that are likely in need of being Performance Task by responding in writing to
retaught and relearned in subsequent grades as students’ writing and speaking matures and grows more complex” (CCSSI, what they read, and they use text evidence to
2010a, Appendix A, p. 28-29). support their ideas.

Using Technology to Teach Writing The program’s Common Core Writing

Handbook provides weekly writing support and
Technology is an important tool in writing instruction. As Castellani and Jeffs (2001) concluded from their examination of
resources to develop students’ skills in writing for
technology for reading and writing instruction: “Blending reading and writing strategies with available technology provides
the purposes and in the forms expected by the
powerful and meaningful tools for literacy instruction. The result is increased student motivation and success with the
Common Core State Standards.
reading and writing process.” Most adult writers now take technology as a given, and recognize the benefits of the word
processor in composing, revising, and editing. For additional specific examples of effective writing
tasks through Journeys Common Core see the
Research has shown the benefits of using technology for writing instruction with children. In one Oregon school, the
following pages.
percentage of fourth-graders meeting the benchmark levels on the state writing test increased from 25 to 75 percent after
the implementation of a new Writing Instruction through Technology program (Eastburn, 2008). Online activities can be
particularly beneficial because of the in-time nature of technology; online feedback can be timely, detailed, consistent, and
evaluative—and, thus, particularly meaningful for students (Bischoff, 2000). Writing for a Purpose in Journeys Common Core
Kuriloff (2004) found technology to be an important tool in teaching college students to be better writers, and found that Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6
it provided additional flexibility and efficiency over in-person instruction. Increased flexibility and efficient use of time are
Write About Write About Write About Write About Write About Write About Write About
particularly important when working to meet the needs of struggling writers and English language learners. According to
Reading Reading Reading Reading Reading Reading Reading
a survey of teachers conducted to look at the connections between technology use and student outcomes, teachers who
K-5: T54, T148, 1-4: T47, T149, 2-5: T45, T145, 3-1: T41, T133, 4-1: T33, T109, 5-1: T33, T109, 6-1: T33, T109,
used technology more frequently in the classroom reported that the technology enabled them to better meet the needs of
T242, T336, Y251, T349, T245, T345, T229, T323, T185, T261, T191, T265, T183, T259
all learners—high achievers, those with specific needs, and ELLs (Grunwald and Associates, 2010). As MacArthur (2009)
T432 T449 T443 T417 T339 T339
discusses, outlining programs, word processing, spell checkers, and other applications can help struggling writers with all
stages of the writing process—from drafting to revising.
Reading- Reading- Reading- Reading- Reading- Reading- Reading-
Technology has been shown to have particular benefits for students who are English language learners. Silver and Repa Writing Writing Writing Writing Writing Writing Writing
(1993) conducted a thirteen-week study of 66 urban ELL students. Using a pre/post study design, researchers found that Workshop Workshop Workshop Workshop Workshop Workshop Workshop
experimental group students who wrote using a word processor significantly outperformed pen-and-paper, control group K-5: T405, T423, 1-4: T341, T351, 2-5: T337, T347, 3-1: T317, T325, 4-1: T280-T283, 5-1: T284-T287, 6-1: T280-T283,
students on the quality of their writing. Cheng (2007) found that language learners who used simulation-based approaches T435, T445, T363, T373, T359, T369, T335, T343, T358-T361 T358-T361 T356-T359
in genre analysis improved their writing ability and enhanced their awareness of features of different genres. Hegelheimer T451 T380-T381, T376-T377, T350-T351,
and Fisher (2006) found that English language learners benefited from explicit grammar instruction and interactivity when T441, T451, T435, T445, T411, T419,
using an online writing tool. T463, T473, T455, T465, T429, T437,
T480-T481 T472-T473 T444-T445

28 29
 Writing Varied Genres in Journeys Common Core
Writing Forms in Journeys Common Core
The text types included in the Common Core State Standards K-5 College and Career Readiness Anchor Standards for Grade K Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6
Writing include:
Writing Forms Writing Forms Writing Forms Writing Forms Writing Forms Writing Forms Writing Forms
1. Write arguments to support claims in an analysis of substantive topics or texts, using valid reasoning and relevant
• Descriptive • Cause-and-Effect • Cause-and- • Cause-and- • Book Report • Autobio- • Personal
and sufficient evidence.
Paragraph Paragraph/ Effect Paragraph Effect Paragraph • Descriptive graphies Narrative
2. Write informative/explanatory texts to examine and convey complex ideas and information clearly and accurately • Dialogue Chart • Descriptive • Compare- Paragraph • Cause-and- • Story Scene
through the effective selection, organization, and analysis of content. • Journal Entry • Descriptive Paragraph and-Contrast • Dialogue Effect Paragraph • Fictional
• Opinion Paragraph • Dialogue Paragraph • Explanation • Descriptive Narrative
3. Write narratives to develop real or imagined experiences or events using effective technique, well-chosen details, Paragraph • Dialogue • Fictional • Descriptive • Explanatory Paragraph • Response Essay
and well-structured event sequences. • Questions • Friendly Letter Narrative Paragraph Essay • Dialogue • Book Review
• Research Report • Journal Entry • Friendly Letter • Dialogue • Fictional • Editorials • Argument
In Journeys Common Core, attention to each of these modes of writing is provided throughout the program. Specific writing • Respond to a • Narrative • Instructions • Explanatory Narrative • Fictional • Procedural Essay
forms are the basis for specific instructional activities. The program’s Weekly Writing Instruction in the Student Book Selection Composition • Opinion Essay • Friendly Letter Narrative • Classification
supports students’ building skills across the writing modes expected by the Common Core State Standards. • Stories • Opinion Paragraph • Fictional • Informational • Friendly Letter Essay
Paragraph • Personal Narrative Paragraph • Informative • Definition Essay
• Personal Narratives • Informative • Informative Writing • Informational
Writing Modes in Journeys Common Core Narratives • Persuasive Essay Paragraph Essay • Journal Entry Essay
• Poetry • Persuasive Letter • Instructions • Instructions • Narrative • Compare-
Grade K Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6
• Research Report • Persuasive • Opinion • Journal Entry Composition Contrast Essay
• Respond to a Paragraph Paragraph • News Report • Opening • Problem
Writing Modes Writing Modes Writing Modes Writing Modes Writing Modes Writing Modes Writing Modes:
Selection • Poetry • Personal • Opinion Essay Statement or -Solution Essay
• Informative • Informative • Informative • Informative • Informative • Informative • Informative
• Stories • Problem- Narrative • Personal Paragraph • Cause-Effect
Writing K-5: Writing 1-3: Writing 2-2: Writing 3-3: Writing 4-5: Writing 5-2: Writing: 6-3:
• Summary Solution • Persuasive Essay Narrative • Opinion Writing Essay
T311, T327, T339, T349, T235, T345, T217, T225, T130-T133 T58-T61 T56-T59
Composition • Persuasive Letter • Persuasive Essay • Personal • Research Report
T339, T349, T361, T373, T257, T267, T235, T243, • Narrative • Narrative • Narrative
• Research Report • Problem- • Persuasive Letter Narratives • Opinion Essay
T355 T380-T381 T274-T275 T250-T251 Writing 4-4: Writing 5-4: Writing: 6-1:
• Respond to a and-Solution • Poem • Persuasive Essay • Persuasive Letter
• Narrative • Narrative • Narrative • Narrative T52-T55 T202-T205 T128-T131
Selection Paragraph • Problem- • Persuasive Letter • Narrative Poem
Writing K-3: Writing 1-5: Writing 2-1: Writing 3-1: • Opinion • Opinion • Argument
• Summary • Research Report Solution • Problem- • Field Notes
T405, T421, T341, T351, T229, T239, T317, T325, Writing 4-3: Writing 5-3: Writing 6-5:
• Response Composition Solution • Radio Script
T433, T449 T363, T373, T251, T261, T335, T343, T206-T209 T210-T213 T356-TT359
Paragraph • Procedural Composition
• Opinion T380-T381 T268-T269 T350-T351
• Response to Composition • Research Report
Writing K-6: • Opinion • Opinion • Opinion
Literature • Public Service • Response Essays
T29, T45, T57, Writing 1-6: Writing 2-3: Writing 3-2:
Announce-ment • Summary
T67, T73 T337, T347, T131, T141, T125, T133,
• Research Report
T359, T369, T151, T161, T143, T151,
• Response to
T376-T377 T168-T169 T158-T159
Fiction
• Story
• Summary

30 31
 To ensure that teachers evaluate writing consistently and using clear
Grammar in Journeys Common Core
benchmarks for effectiveness, the Journeys Common Core program provides
rubrics. Each rubric is standards-based and allows teachers to assess student Grade K Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6
work against the benchmarks established by the Common Core State Standards.
• Adjectives • Adjectives • Abbreviations • Adjectives • Abbreviations • Abbreviations • Complete
In the program’s Teacher’s Edition, teachers are supported with building • Adverbs • Adverbs • Adjectives • Adverbs • Adjectives • Adjectives Sentences
Common Core-aligned writing skills through the programs five days of • Capitalization • Articles • Adverbs • Commas (comparative, • Adverbs • Subjects and
Narrative, Informative, and Opinion Writing lessons, which connect to the • Command • Commands • Commands • Contractions superlative) • Commas and Predicates
Common Core State Standards, the Anchor Texts, and the Writing Rubrics. • Complete • Contractions • Conjunctions • Nouns • Adverbs Semicolons • Common and
Sentences • Negatives • Contractions (abstract, (comparative, • Common and Proper Nouns
• Exclamations • Nouns (plural, • Exclamations common, superlative, Proper Nouns • Verbs and
• Nouns (plural, possessive, • Nouns (plural, proper, plural, relative) • Complete, Objects
proper) proper) possessive, possessive) • Capitalization Complex, and • Coordinating
• Prepositions • Participles proper) • Prepositions • Commas Compound Conjunctions
• Pronouns • Prepositional • Prepositional • Pronouns • Common Errors Sentences • Subordinating
• Punctuation Phrases Phrases • Pronoun-Verb • Comparisons • Complete Conjunctions
Grammar Instruction in Journeys Common Core
• Questions • Prepositions • Prepositions Agreement • Conjunctions Subjects and • Subject
In Journeys Common Core, grammar instruction is embedded in the context of reading and writing. Students learn concepts • Sensory Words • Pronouns • Pronouns • Sentences • Contractions Predicates and Object
and rules of grammar through their own and others’ writing, as is evidenced by the program’s Connect to Writing feature. • Sentences • Punctuation • Punctuation (complex, • Frequently • Conjunctions Pronouns
• Speaking and • Questions • Questions compound, Confused • Contractions • Simple and
Grammar instruction follows the same pattern followed elsewhere throughout the Journeys Common Core program. New
Listening • Sensory Words • Sentences simple) Words • Correlative Perfect Verb
concepts are taught, and learned concepts are reviewed to reinforce learning and make connections between what is newly
• Statements • Sentences (complete, • Subject-Verb • Negatives Conjunctions Tenses
learned and what is being retained.
• Subjects and (complete) compound) Agreement • Nouns • Dialogue and • Subject-verb

Daily Proofreading Practice provides a quick, daily opportunity for students to apply their skills. Predicates • Speaking and • Speaking and • Verbs (irregular, (possessive, Interjections Agreement
• Tense Listening Listening be, helping) proper) • Direct and • Regular and
Grammar lessons focus on one specific Common Core-aligned grammatical element, and include suggestions in the • Theme • Subjects and • Subjects and • Participles Indirect Objects Irregular Verbs
Teacher’s Edition for how to teach, model, provide for guided practice/application, and differentiate learning for specific • Verbs Predicates Predicates • Prepositions • Direct • Principal Parts
student populations. • Tenses • Tenses • Prepositional Quotations and of Verbs
• Titles • Titles Phrases Interjections • Adjectives and
• Verbs • Transitions • Pronouns • Verbs (easily Adverbs
• Verbs (correct, confused, • Punctuation
demonstrative irregular) • Prepositions
possessive…) • Progressive
Forms
• Quotations
• Contractions
• Proper
Mechanics
• Titles and
Abbreviations

Throughout the Journeys Common Core program, students

receive comprehensive instruction in all the grammar concepts and skills they need to be clear and effective writers and
editors.

32 33
 And, finally, students are given the opportunity to apply grammar skills in real contexts when they engage Strand 4: Using Effective Instructional
in the writing process and proofread and revise their own work. By emphasizing required
Approaches
achievements, the Standards
Using Technology to Teach Writing in Journeys Common Core Defining the Strand leave room for teachers,
Good teaching matters. Effective teachers use effective instructional curriculum developers, and
In Journeys Common Core, students use technology to improve their writing through program resources,
techniques to support all students in learning and skill-development. states to determine how those
including the online student program myWriteSmart that offers grade-level specific support for
students. With myWriteSmart, students are given the opportunity to: Studies show that classroom teachers’ instructional strategies have a goals should be reached and
direct impact on students’ reading proficiency (Pennington Whitaker, what additional topics should be
• Use a variety of digital tools to produce and publish writing; Gambrell, & Morrow, 2004). To be effective, teachers must select strategies addressed. Thus, the Standards
• Engage in multiple opportunities for peer collaboration; for instruction that accomplish their instructional goals and best meet the
do not mandate such things as
• Receive interactive and scaffolded support for writing; learning needs of their students.
a particular writing process or
• Create multimedia visual displays in presentations;
• Respond to performance tasks and performance assessments; A large body of research has focused on identifying the most effective the full range of metacognitive
• Research projects of varying lengths to build knowledge about a topic. instructional strategies. The research of the RAND Reading Study Group strategies that students may
(Snow, 2002) identified elements of effective instruction in the reading need to monitor and direct
classroom. Among their findings were that cooperative learning and
For teachers online, myWriteSmart offers teachers the chance to track student work and progress, their thinking and learning.
comment on student writing, connect to rubrics, and link to additional tools and resources. graphic organizers were two of the instructional strategies with a solid
scientific basis; that motivation is essential to reading comprehension; and
Teachers are thus free to provide
that successful reading depends on students’ capacity with written and students with whatever tools and
The Journeys Common Core GrammarSnap Videos offer students and teachers short, high-energy
oral language. Studies like that of the RAND study group have identified a knowledge their professional
videos that clearly demonstrate grammar concepts.
number of approaches that show positive and measurable effects on student judgment and experience identify
For some examples of how technology is used in Journeys Common Core, see the online tools themselves learning and performance. Some of these approaches include use of and as most helpful for meeting the
and program pages as shown in the table below. focus on: goals set out in the Standards.
• Scaffolding • Varied Forms of
Digital Resources for Writing in Journeys Common Core Communication CCSSI, 2010a, p. 4
• Graphic Organizers
Grade K Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6
• Engagement and
• Predictable Routines Motivation
Grammar Snap Grammar Snap Grammar Snap Grammar Snap Grammar Snap Grammar Snap
Videos 1-1: Videos 2-3: Videos 3-1: Videos 4-1: Videos 5-1: Videos 6-5: • Collaborative Learning • Technology
T3, T99, T195 T58; 2-4: T109; T34, T42, T52, T3, T9, T11, T48, T3, T48, T51, T124, T198,
2-5: T46, T74, T60, T66, T126, T77, T83, T124, T77, T106, T276 • Grouping in Instruction • Research and Inquiry
T246, T274 T134 T153 T130, T133

An effective instructional program uses approaches that have been proven effective by research. The Journeys Common
myWriteSmart myWriteSmart myWriteSmart myWriteSmart myWriteSmart myWriteSmart myWriteSmart Core program was designed to support students as they develop as readers and writers. Lessons are organized in a
K-4: T73, T167, 1-5: T35, T135, 2-4: T39, T139, 3-1: T43, T127, 4-1: T52, T130, 5-1: T52, T134, 6-5: T77, T79, systematic way and suggestions are given for providing instruction to the whole group and small groups. Ideas are
T261, T355, T237, T341, T237, T339, T223, T317, T206, T280, T210, T284, T83, T109, T119 presented visually to support students’ connections. Throughout the program, scaffolds exist to help students solidify what
T449 T441 T439 T411 T358 T358 they know in order to build on it. The types and topics of the texts—and the activities that students do around them—have all
been designed for maximum student engagement and motivation.

34 35
 Research that Guided the Development of Journeys Common Core
Scaffolding
Scaffolding is an instructional technique that involves providing support to students as they learn and reach competence,
and gradually decreasing the amount of support provided until students are able to work independently. According to
Vygotsky, scaffolding can be defined as the “role of teachers and others in supporting the learner’s development and
providing support structures to get to that next stage or level” (Raymond, 2000, p. 176). Providing embedded scaffolds is
an essential part of transitioning students to independence and “has repeatedly been identified as one of the most effective
instructional techniques available” (Graves & Avery, 1997, p. 138). Numerous studies have shown that scaffolding can lead
to improved student outcomes—including enhanced inquiry and higher achievement (Kim & White, 2008; Simons & Klein,
2007; Fretz, Wu, Zhang, Davis, Krajcik, & Soloway, 2002; Rosenshine & Meister, 1992) and improved reading comprehension
(Clark & Graves, 2008; Lutz, Guthrie, & Davis, 2006).
Instruction that scaffolds students’ learning includes these elements: a logical structure, carefully sequenced models and
examples that reveal essential characteristics, progression from easier to more difficult content and from easier to more
difficult tasks, additional information/elaboration as needed, peer-mediated instruction, and materials that guide students,
such as key words, think sheets, and graphic organizers (Hillocks, 1993). The final element of scaffolding is independent
work—scaffolding is removed and students apply what they have learned to new situations.
Scaffolding encompasses many different instructional strategies. Varying scaffolds can be used; what is important is that
they consistently provide adequate support as needed. Research (Schunk, Pintrich, & Meece, 2008; Stone, 1998) suggests
that scaffolds such as the following will support student independence: activating prior knowledge; reviewing previously
learned material; modeling and thinking aloud; providing models and different representations; questioning; using cues or
tools; and providing useful feedback.
Graphic Organizers
In its review of the literature on effective strategies for teaching reading comprehension, the National Reading Panel
found graphic organizers an important strategy for improving students’ comprehension (National Reading Panel, 2000).
Numerous studies have come to this same conclusion (Dickson, Simmons, & Kame’enui, 1996; Pearson & Fielding, 1991)
and have found positive effects with all students, including those with learning disabilities (Kim, Vaughn, Wanzek, & Wei,
2004)
What makes graphic organizers so effective? Combining text with visuals engages students’ multiple pathways to learning,
as described in Paivio’s (1979, 1983, 1986) dual-coding theory. A number of studies have demonstrated that students learn
better when both pictures and words are used, than with text alone (Mayer, 2001; Mayer & Gallini, 1990; Levin, Anglin, &
Carney, 1987; Levie & Lentz, 1982). Nonlinguistic representations are one of the nine most effective instructional strategies
identified by Marzano (2003) and have been shown to help students better understand informational text (Center for
Improvement of Early Reading, 2003).
Graphic organizers are particularly effective at helping students to focus on the structure of text and the relationship of ideas
within text (Center for the Improvement of Early Reading, 2003; Robinson & Kiewra, 1995). The use of graphic organizers to
graphically depict the relationships of ideas in texts has been shown to improve both students’ comprehension of the text—
and their recall of key ideas (Snow, 2002; National Reading Panel, 2000).
36
Predictable Routines
Predictability in well-organized, consistent classroom routines facilitates learning in a number of ways. Regular routines
with consistent cues help smooth the transitions between one activity to another (Mace, Shapiro, & Mace, 1998) and reduce
problem behaviors. When students can predict the routines of their school day, they develop a sense of security (Holdaway,
1984). Not only does student behavior improve, but students also show greater engagement with learning and achieve at
higher levels (Kern & Clemens, 2007).
Teachers can increase predictability in their classrooms in many ways. Providing information about the content and
duration of events and activities and visually displaying schedules have been shown to be effective (Kern & Clemens, 2007).
Alternating the interactive settings—whole class, small group, individual—in a predictable way to best meet students’ needs
has been shown to be particularly effective (Reutzel, 2003).
This type of predictability in the instructional routine has been demonstrated to be particularly effective for struggling
students and those with learning disabilities (Flannery & O’Neill, 1995; Tustin, 1995).
Collaborative Learning
Learning together in collaborative and cooperative groups benefits students (Cotton, 1995; Johnson & Johnson, 1990) and
was one of the nine most effective instruction strategies identified by Marzano in his meta-analysis (2003). Participating
as a productive member in academic conversations and collaborations is an expectation within the Common Core State
Standards (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2010a).
How does collaborative learning increase learning? Learning is “profoundly influenced by the nature of the social
relationships within which people find themselves” (Caine & Caine, 1997a, p. 105). Research and cognitive theory suggest
that when students work in groups toward a common goal, they support one another, model strategies, and provide context-
appropriate explanations and immediate feedback (Slavin, 2002).
Among the benefits of collaborative learning for students are increased:
• Understanding and application of concepts;
• Use of critical thinking;
• Sense of self-efficacy, or confidence in their ability to learn;
• Positive attitudes towards others (Vermette, 1988).
Research has also demonstrated the positive impact that cooperative learning strategies have on teaching students reading-
comprehension strategies (Stevens, Slavin, & Farnish, 1991). Having peers interact over the use of reading strategies was
demonstrated in research to increase student learning of strategies, encourage discussion, and increase comprehension
(National Reading Panel, 2000).
Whole-Group and Small-Group Instruction
Effective instructors employ whole-group, small-group, and independent learning activities to meet the needs of all of
their students (McNamara & Waugh, 1993). According to Kapusnick and Hauslein (2001), “Students learn better and
more easily when teachers use a variety of delivery methods, providing students with learning experiences that maximize
their strengths” (p. 156). This regular differentiation of instructional format allows for the broad dissemination of shared
information, as well as opportunities to discuss and tailor instruction to small groups and individual students. Effective
teachers use whole-group instruction to introduce new skills and concepts and smaller groups to ensure thorough learning
(Cotton, 1995).
37
 For teachers of reading, beginning reading instruction with a whole-group shared read-aloud, as in Journeys Common
Core, provides a common foundation for all students (Fountas & Pinnell, 2006), while small-group instruction allows for
learning based on specific needs and interests. Pressley, Yokoi, Rankin, Wharton-McDonald, and Mistretta (1997) found a
correlation between effective instruction in reading and writing and the use of diverse activities—whole-group, small-group,
and independent reading. The National Reading Panel (2000) supported these findings about the benefits of employing
whole-group and small-group learning; “Having peers … interact over the use of reading strategies leads to an increase in
the learning of strategies, promotes intellectual discussion, and increases reading comprehension” (4-45).
Placement in small groups for instruction has been shown to benefit all students—those with low, medium, and high abilities
(Abrami, Lou, Chambers, Poulsen, Spence, & Abrami, 2000).
Varied Forms of Communication
Integrating skills is particularly important in English language arts classrooms because of the interconnectedness of reading
and writing, speaking and listening, and viewing. Each of these language arts is more readily learned and retained when
skills are integrated, allowing students to create pathways of learning and remembering in their minds. Research suggests
that a balanced literacy program will include many varied reading, writing, speaking, listening, and viewing activities (Snow,
Burns, & Griffin, 1998; Lyon & Moats, 1997).
In a study of an instructional program in which teachers provided a wide range of reading materials and the integration of
reading, writing, speaking, and listening, 90% of students recommended continuing the integrated-skills approach in the
following year (Su, 2007).
This balanced approach to literacy instruction is apparent in the Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts and
Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects, which demonstrate a focus on reading, writing, listening,
speaking, and critical viewing for college and career readiness (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2010a).
Engagement and Motivation
Learning is an active process of engagement. If students are interested in what they are learning, they will persist in spending
the time and energy needed for learning to occur (Hidi & Boscolo, 2006; Guthrie & Humenick, 2004; Eccles, Wigfield, &
Schiefele, 1998). In this way, engagement leads to motivation leads to learning.
Engagement and motivation are particularly important in teaching reading (Stipek, 2002). Student engagement is
a “powerful determinant of the effectiveness of any given literacy approach” (Strangman & Dalton, 2006, p. 559).
Guthrie, Hoa, Wigfield, Tonks, Humenick, and Littles (2007) found a connection between student interest and increased
comprehension and recall. Taylor, Pearson, Peterson, and Rodriguez (2003), too, found a connection between engaged
learning and reading comprehension growth in low SES schools. Guthrie and Wigfield (2000) found that engaging reading
instruction must:
• Teach and encourage use of strategies
• Increase students’ conceptual knowledge;
• Foster social interaction; and
• Foster student motivation.
Motivation is the process by which a student engages in a task and persists towards completion. Research in cognitive
science shows that humans are innately motivated to search for meaning (Caine & Caine, 1997b). The most effective
instructional approaches are those that harness this natural inclination, and are motivating and engaging to the learners.
38
The level of a student’s motivation to read has been shown to predict growth in reading comprehension (Guthrie, Hoa,
Wigfield, Tonks, Humenick, & Littles, 2007).
To motivate their students, reading teachers should construct lessons that are interesting, match activities to students’
abilities, and connect reading and writing and content-area learning (Bohn, Roehrig, & Pressley, 2004) In addition, the use of
strategies also increases students’ motivation to learn—because successful strategy use helps students to see that they have
the ability to learn (Schunk, Pintrich, & Meece, 2008).
Technology
Numerous studies and meta-analyses support the use of computers in the classroom to improve student learning (see
Means, Toyama, Murphy, Bakia, & Jones, 2009; North Central Regional Educational Laboratory, 2003; Teh & Fraser, 1995).
Mayer (2001, 2005), a leading researcher in the field of multimedia learning, argues that student learning is increased in
multimedia environments because information can be presented in multiple formats—including words, audio, and pictures.
Students are able to learn more and retain information when they can access information using these different pathways. To
reach their students’ full potential for learning, educators must know how best to integrate technology into the classroom—
to use technology not for the sake of technology but for the purpose of facilitating increased learning and achievement.
In a study of the use of technology to improve students’ ability to use source information, Britt and Aglinskas (2002) found
that students who used the computer-based tutorial referenced more text-based evidence than did the group who engaged
in more regular classroom activity.
Means, Toyama, Murphy, Bakia, and Jones (2009) found that online learning approaches were effective across types of
learners—from lower-achieving students to above average. One reason for this may be because multimedia learning
environments are able to reach students who learn in different ways—visual learners, auditory learners, kinesthetic learners.
Another reason may be the power of technology to embed scaffolds at the point of use.
Research and Inquiry
Students learn best when they are actively engaged in learning—investigating topics and analyzing their findings. One of the
key design considerations in the Common Core State Standards was to embed research throughout the Standards:
To be ready for college, workforce training, and life in a technological society, students need the ability
to gather, comprehend, evaluate, synthesize, and report on information and ideas, to conduct original
research in order to answer questions or solve problems, and to analyze and create a high volume and
extensive range of print and nonprint texts in media forms old and new. (CCSSI, 2010A, p. 4)
Marzano, Pickering, and Pollock (2001) synthesized research on effective instructional strategies, and found that generating
and testing hypotheses was one of the nine research-based instructional strategies proven to increase learning and raise
achievement. Students who research and analyze information become better critical thinkers.
Engaging in research and sharing the results is common in school and in work. In postsecondary education and the
workplace, “most writing can be broadly described as persuading readers to change their perspectives or to take action;
explaining information, issues, and ideas; and reflecting on experience to make thoughtful judgments…” (ACT, 2007, p. 28).
The act of researching results in a greater understanding of a topic or an idea. This knowledge can lead to improved
communication and writing. In his research with students at grades 4, 6, and 8, McCutchen (1986) found that
students with greater content knowledge of the subject for writing produced stronger, more clearly organized, and
better-supported essays than those with lower knowledge of the content.
39
 From Research to Practice In addition, in Journeys Common Core, students are provided with opportunities to analyze the graphic features they
encounter in texts. Considering how model texts employ graphics can help students think metacognitively about the value
Scaffolding in Journeys Common Core
of using graphic organizers in their own planning, studying, thinking, and writing.
The Journeys Common Core program provides specific support for teachers seeking to scaffold instruction for their students
to ensure that all students acquire the reading skills and strategies they need to continue to read more challenging texts Teachers are provided with additional graphic organizers for use to support learning in each lesson, through such resources
and that all English Language Learners in their classrooms acquire social and academic language proficiency. Scaffolding is as the Leveled Reader Graphic Organizers and the Graphic Organizer Blackline Masters.
provided in many ways, through Language Support Cards, Leveled Readers, Vocabulary in Context Cards, and notes
Predictable Routines in Journeys Common Core
throughout the Teacher’s Edition. The program’s myWriteSmart scaffolds students’ writing development.
Journeys Common Core provides the predictable structure that research shows that learners need. Research has identified
The teaching model employed throughout the program provides scaffolding for all students to move towards independent establishing predictable routines from the beginning of the year as one of the characteristics of highly effective teachers (Bohn,
application of the strategies and skills learned. Text-based scaffolding helps students learn to read complex texts Roehrig, & Pressley, 2004), and the consistent structure of Journeys Common Core allows for teachers to do just that—
independently. To build the kinds of close reading text analysis skills that students need to meet the Common Core State establish effective, predictable routines from Day 1.
Standards, the program provides close reading scaffolds at point of use with each lesson’s Anchor Text. For examples, see
Grade 5, 5-1: pages T18, T92, T174, and T250. The work of Rosenshine and Stevens (1986) revealed that effective teachers in well-organized classrooms tend to follow
similar predictable routines, including these:
In addition, for English Language Learners who need additional support to master the skills and strategies taught in the
classroom, specific tips – English Language Learners Scaffolds – are provided as sidebars throughout the Teacher’s • Begin with a short review and statement of goals;
Edition. Suggestions are provided for: • Present new material in small steps;
• Give clear and detailed instructions and explanations;
• Vocabulary (including Tier 1/High-Utility Words and Tiers 2 and 3/Target Vocabulary and Vocabulary Strategies) • Provide time for guided and independent practice;
• Scaffolding Phonics/Decoding • Ask questions;
• Scaffolding Comprehension • Provide systematic feedback
• Scaffolding Writing
• Scaffolding Grammar Each of these steps is clearly supported by the organization and components of Journeys Common Core.
• Scaffolding Spelling
Grades K-3 feature Opening Routines each day, and Today’s Goals are listed explicitly. A Warm-Up activity is provided,
Graphic Organizers in Journeys Common Core followed by other daily activities (such as Daily Phonics and Daily Vocabulary Boost at grade 3).
Graphic organizers are used throughout Journeys Common Core to provide a framework for students’ understanding of text
structure, to improve their comprehension, and to help students’ structure their own writing in the prewriting step. Graphic After reading the Anchor Text in each lesson,
organizers included at various levels of the program are shown below: students respond to the text through the Your
Turn writing and discussion activities so that
Graphic Organizers in Journeys Common Core they are regularly given a chance to apply
Grade K Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 their skills, ask questions, and reflect on their
learning.
• Story Map • Column Chart • Column Chart • Column Chart • Column Chart • Column Chart
• Story Map
• T-Map • Feature Map • Feature Map • Feature Map • Feature Map • Feature Map
• T-Map
• Idea-Support • Flow Chart • Flow Chart • Flow Chart • Flow Chart • Flow Chart
• Idea-Support
Map • Four-Square • Four-Square • Four-Square • Four-Square • Four-Square
The program’s well-designed, comprehensive
Map assessment system—which includes the use
• Column Chart Map Map Map Map Map
• Column Chart
• Web
• Web • Idea-Support • Idea-Support • Idea-Support • Idea-Support • Idea-Support of consistent rubrics for scoring students’
• Flow Chart Map Map Map Map Map writing—means that the predictable
• Flow Chart
• Inference Map • Inference Map • Inference Map • Inference Map • Inference Map • Inference Map
• Inference Map
• Venn Diagram • Story Map • Story Map • Story Map • Story Map • Story Map routines of instruction are punctuated by
• Venn Diagram detailed feedback. So students learning with
• T-Map • T-Map • T-Map • T-Map • T-Map
• Venn Diagram • Venn Diagram • Venn Diagram • Venn Diagram • Venn Diagram Journeys Common Core know what to expect
• Web • Web • Web • Web • Web
instructionally—and know how they are
performing.

40 41
 Collaborative Learning in Journeys Common Core The teacher-friendly design of the Teacher’s Editions supports teachers moving between whole-group and small-group
instruction with easy-to-locate, colored tabs marking activities as either Whole Group or Small Group.
Collaboration is an emphasis in the Common Core State Standards. In the College and Career Readiness Anchor Standards
for Speaking and Listening, the first anchor standard states that students are expected to: For specific examples of whole-group, small-group, and independent learning activities in Journeys Common Core see the
following pages.
1. Prepare for and participate effectively in a range of conversations and collaborations with diverse partners,
building on others’ ideas and expressing their own clearly and persuasively.
Whole-Group and Small-Group Instruction in Journeys Common Core
And this expectation is carried through across the grade levels. According the Common Core State Standards, “To build Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6
a foundation for college and career readiness, students must have ample opportunities to take part in a variety of rich,
structured conversations—as part of a whole class, in small groups, and with a partner. Being productive members of these Whole-Group Whole-Group Whole-Group Whole-Group Whole-Group Whole-Group Whole-Group
conversations requires that students contribute accurate, relevant information; respond to and develop what others have Instruction K-1: Instruction Instruction Instruction Instruction Instruction Instruction
said; make comparisons and contrasts; and analyze and synthesize a multitude of ideas in various domains” (Common Core T388-T451; K-2: 1-3: T1-T78, 2-4: T1-T79, 3-3: T1–T75, 4-4: T1-T58, 5-3: T1–T61, 6-5: T1-T57,
State Standards Initiative, 2010a, 22). T12-T73; K-3: T99-T178, T101-T179, T97–T167, T75-T132, T79–T141, T75-T133,
T200-T261; K-5: T199-T282, T201-T279, T189–T261, T149-T210, T159–T215, T152-T207,
Small-Group activities help students develop as readers based on their needs, challenges, and preferences. In Journeys T294-T355; K-6: T303-T384, T301-T379, T283–T353, T227-T284, T233–T289, T225-T285,
Common Core, classroom collaboration is emphasized. Collaboration begins at the earliest grades, and continues through T12-T73 T405-T484 T401-T484 T375–T449 T301-T366 T307–T370 T303-T366
the program. For examples in Grade 1, see 1-2: T15, T117, T219. For examples at upper grade-levels, see Grade 4, 4-3: T13,
T87, T167.
Small-Group Small-Group Small-Group Small-Group Small-Group Small-Group Small-Group-
Students’ collaboration skills are further built through the Student Book: Your Turn feature, in which, after every Anchor Instruction K-1: Instruction Instruction Instruction Instruction Instruction Instruction
Text, students have the chance to engage in collaborative classroom conversations. In addition, a Speaking & Listening or T456-T471; K-2: 1-3: T79-T97, 2-4: T81-T99, 3-3: T76–T95, 4-4: T59-T74, 5-3: T63–T77, 6-5: T59-T73,
Media Literacy activity provided in every lesson allows students to expand their collaborative skills through group research, T78-T93; K-3: T179-T197, T181-T199, T168–T187, T133-T148, T143–T157, T135-T149,
literature discussions, and presentations. T266-T281; K-5: T283-T301, T281-T299, T262–T281, T211-T226, T217–T231, T209-T223,
T360-T375; K-6: T385-T403, T381-T399, T354–T373, T285-T300, T291–T305, T287-T301,
Whole-Group and Small-Group Instruction in Journeys Common Core T76-T93 T489-T507 T485-T503 T450–T469 T367-T382 T371–T385 T367-T381
In each level of Journeys Common Core, comprehensive instructional support is provided for three different instructional
groupings: Whole-Group Teaching, Small-Group Teaching, and Independent Literacy Work. Independent Independent Independent Independent Independent Independent Independent
In each lesson, Anchor Text reading is done as a whole group, followed by Language Arts instruction (in grammar, K-1: T71, T165, 1-3: T8-T9, 2-4: T8-T9, 3-3: T8–T9, T50– 4-4: T8-T9, T34, 5-1 5-3: T8–T9, 6-5: T34, T82,
writing, and so on). The whole-group reading of the Anchor Text ensures that all students are accessing complex texts, with T259, T448; K-2: T52-T53, T54-T55, T51, T104–T105, T82-T83, T108, T36, T86–T87, T83, T158, T159,
appropriate scaffolding, and allows for meaningful discussion about the text. Progress Monitoring is done as a whole T70, T352; K-3: T106-T107, T108-T109, T144–T145, T156-T157, T112, T156– T232, T233,
group, as well. T164, T352 T152-T153, T154-T155, T196–T197, T180, T157, T192, T310, T311
T206-T207, T208-T209, T238–T239, T234-T235, T240–T241,
After the foundation is set with whole-group activities, instruction transitions to small-group learning which can be T252-T253, T254-T255, T290–T291, T260, T266, T314–
better leveled to meet the needs of groups of students. With the Weekly Leveled Readers, groups can be organized for T310-T311, T308-T309, T330–T331, T308-T309, T338 T315, T342
Struggling Readers, On Level readers, Advanced T356-T357, T354-T355, T382–T383,
readers, and English Language Learners. T412-T413, T408-T409, T422–T423
T458-T459 T454-T455
While teachers work with small groups, other
students can be involved in independent work—
meaningful and productive activities that can be
completed independently. This might include
students working in the Reader’s Notebook,
which includes interactive practice for phonics,
comprehension, spelling, grammar, and writing
traits. Or, students might work in Literacy Centers,
which include Word Study, Think and Write, and
Comprehension and Fluency activities.

42 43
 Varied Forms of Communication in Journeys Common Core
Speaking and Listening in Journeys Common Core
Journeys Common Core develops students’ skills and abilities in speaking, listening, reading, writing, and viewing. The Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6
previous sections of this report have thoroughly documented the ways in which reading and writing are taught in the
Journeys Common Core program. Speaking, listening, and viewing are all developed in many ways throughout the levels of Speaking and Speaking and Speaking and Speaking and Speaking and Speaking and Speaking and
Listening Listening Listening Listening Listening Listening Listening
the program, too. • Literature
• Adapt Spoken • Ask and • Academic • Ask and • Brainstorm • Answer a
Language Answer English Answer • Discuss to Research Discussion
Lessons begin with a Teacher Read Aloud, building students’ listening comprehension with oral language. Students’ • Ask and Questions • Ask and Questions Compare Question
• Give a Speech
• Evaluating
speaking, listening, viewing, and presenting are developed through group discussions, asking and answering questions, Answer • Ask Questions Answer • Brainstorm-ing and Contrast • Compare Author’s Claim
interpreting information presented visually, and so on. Each lesson includes a Research and Media Literacy or a Questions • Compare and Questions Problems and Accounts and Contrast • Compare
• Compare and Contrast • Compare and Solutions • Discuss/Use/ Varieties of and Contrast
Speaking/Listening activity that extends the lesson topic and connects to the week’s reading as well.
Contrast • Computer/ Contrast • Create View Symbols English Experiences
• Compare Print Internet: • Computer/ an Audio and Images • Conduct • Paraphrasing
Students’ speaking and listening skills are further built through the Student Book: Your Turn feature, in which, after every and Nonprint Create and Use Internet: Recording • Dramatize a Research • Posing
Anchor Text, students have the chance to engage in collaborative classroom conversations—through program features Information Visuals Create and Use • Deliver a News Scene/Story to Solve a Questions
About the Story
such as Turn and Talk and Classroom Conversation. • Computer/ • Connections Visuals Report • Give/Make Problem
• Persuasive
Internet: • Conversation • Connections • Dramatize a a Persuasive • Create a
Speech
Create and Use Strategies • Conversation Story Speech Multimedia
• Compare
Visuals • Critical Strategies • Interpret • Have a Presentation Poetry
• Connections Listening • Deliver Oral Information Discussion • Give a • Citing Details
• Conversation • Descriptive Summaries Presented • Have a Persuasive • Give a Speech
Strategies Language • Descriptive Orally Literature Speech • Participate in a
• Details • Details Language • Hold a Group Discussion • Discuss Poetic Debate
• Discussion • Directions • Directions Discussion • Infer from Elements • Compare
Strategies • Discussion • Evaluate Media • Make a Actors’ Words • Dramatize a Presentations
• Establishing Strategies Sources Descriptive and Actions Story Event • Ask and
Routines • Evaluate Media • Give a Presentation • Listen to a • Explain an Answer
Questions
• Evaluate Media Sources Narrative • Make a Visual Recording Author’s
• Present an
Sources • Give a Speech Presentation • Paraphrase Argument Argument
Narrative • Give and • Recount an Information in • Give an • Compare and
Speech Follow Experience Diverse Media Informative Contrast Media
Directions • Report on a Speech • Compare
Text Folktales
• Analyze and
Evaluate
Presentations
• Hold a Debate
• Prepare a
Storyboard
• Oral
Multimedia
Presentation

Students gain experience viewing and presenting through the program’s myWriteSmart activities, which offer
opportunities to create multimedia visual displays in presentations. Engagement and Motivation in Journeys Common Core

For more examples of the types of Speaking and Listening opportunities in Journeys Common Core, see the examples in The Journeys Common Core program engages and motivates students by ensuring that all students will be interested in the
the following table. program texts and activities and will be supported to experience success in the program. Research supports the fact that
highly effective teachers focus on supporting students’ engagement and motivation in reading (Dolezal, Welsh, Pressley, &
Vincent, 2003).

The many program features described in detail throughout this report contribute to students’ engagement and motivation.
Differentiated instruction; scaffolding; explicit strategies instruction; the combination of Whole-Group, Small-Group,
and Independent learning activities; and the Leveled Readers all work together to ensure that students build a sense of
independence and experience success as they work through the activities in the program. This sense of confidence ensures
that students have the motivation to persist in learning.
44 45
 In addition, high-interest literature serves to engage readers throughout each level of Journeys Common Core. The Specific Digital Resources are strengths of the program, and include tools designed specifically to support both students
organization of multiple texts around domains and grade-appropriate lesson topics helps students to build knowledge of a and teachers.
topic over time and supports their continued interest in learning.
For students:
Each lesson in Journeys Common Core features a domain and topic that tie the week’s text selections together. For example,
• Student eBook • Cross-Curricular Activity Bank
at Kindergarten, Domains include:
• Decodable Readers • Leveled Readers and Vocabulary
• Civics • Recreation and Travel • myWriteSmart Readers Online
• Communication • Science • GrammarSnap Videos • Picture Card Bank Online
• Community • Social Relationships • Destination Reading • Multimedia Grammar Glossary
• Cultures • Social Sciences • Vocabulary in Context Cards
• Earth Science • Social Studies
• General Science • Technology and Innovation For teachers:
• Life Science • Values • Journeys Digital Gateway • Literacy and Language Guide
• Math • Leveled Readers Database
• Online Teacher’s Edition and
Planning Resources • Leveled Readers Teacher’s Guides
The organization by domains, which spiral across the grade levels but are filtered through grade-appropriate lesson topics, • myPlanner • WriteSmart Online Writing Tools
provides a continuity and a meaningful progression as students build content knowledge through engaging complex texts. • Teacher One-Stop • Grab-and-Go Blackline Masters
• Interactive Focus Wall and Instructional Routines
Technology in Journeys Common Core • Interactive Whiteboard Lessons • ELD Station Online
The Common Core State Standards emphasize that students who are college and career ready are those who are able to
“employ technology thoughtfully to enhance their reading, writing, speaking, listening, and language use” (CCSSI, 2010a,
p. 7). Technology is integrated throughout Journeys Common Core. Students learn to use technology strategically to Research and Inquiry in Journeys Common Core
support their learning and performance, and teachers use technology to facilitate instruction, assessment, and feedback.
Students are active investigators in Journeys Common Core. The program teaches students specific skills for Research and
The program’s Digital Path supports both teachers and students. Media Literacy so that they have the skills to engage in inquiry.

46 47
 Throughout each grade level, students continue to develop specific skills related to research and inquiry. Strand 5: Assessment
In Grade 3, for example, students develop Research and Media Literacy skills through activities such as these: Assessment . . . refers to all
• Brainstorm Topics Defining the Strand those activities undertaken
• Citing Sources by teachers—and by their
• Conduct a Research Project To best meet the needs of each student, teachers must have a deep and students in assessing
clear understanding of the needs of each. In successful classrooms,
• Gather Information themselves—that provide
• Generate a Research Plan teachers use effective tools to collect data about students’ knowledge
and skills so that they can understand what is working instructionally—
information to be used as
• Interpret Information Presented Quantitatively
and what is not—and take precise, swift, and effective action in meeting feedback to modify teaching
• Interpret Information Presented Visually
• Narrow a Topic the specific needs of students. In a data-driven system, clear and shared and learning activities…
• Paraphrasing vs. Plagiarism standards are important, so that students and teachers know the intended
Black & Wiliam, 1998a, p. 140
• Present a Research Project outcomes of instruction. Assessments aligned to the standards are
• Refine a Research Question essential, so that teachers can analyze how well students meet the goals
• Take Notes for learning. Finally, aligned instruction is crucial, so that teachers have the
instructional materials they need to address students’ needs.
In Grade 5, students continue to develop through skills such as these:
As noted by numerous research studies, the regular use of assessment to monitor student progress can improve student
• Brainstorming learning (Fuchs, 2004). Research attests to the positive effects that formative assessment has on learning (Black & Wiliam,
• Creating Works-Cited Page 1998b; Cotton, 1995; Jerald, 2001). And in early reading, assessment is especially crucial; because the early literacy skills of
• Formulating Questions children in kindergarten, first, and second grade are foundational for the development of subsequent comprehension and
• Generating Research Plans literacy skills, accurate and reliable assessment and effective instruction and intervention are imperative. As Coyne and Harn
• Media (2006) state, “By completing the link between assessment and instruction, schools can dramatically increase the number of
• Narrowing Topics students who become successful readers in the primary grades.”
• Sources
Journeys Common Core supports assessment-informed, data-driven instruction. Throughout the program, varied
• Taking Notes
assessments provide valuable information about student learning that can help teachers plan and modify instruction.
• Using Data from Experts
Journeys Common Core integrates effective assessment practices by supporting teachers in using
• Using Reference Texts and Visual Sources
• Interpret Information • Diagnostic assessment;
• Formative assessment;
In the myWriteSmart program online, students have the opportunity to engage in short and extended research projects to
build knowledge about a topic—a key element of language arts and comprehension instruction emphasized by the authors • Summative assessment; and
of the Common Core State Standards. • Effective tools to prepare students for standardized assessments.

And, finally, the program provides students with additional practice applying research and inquiry skills, such as through the
Research and Media Performance Task. Research that Guided the Development of the Journeys Common Core Program
Diagnostic Assessment

Effective instruction depends upon teachers who make good decisions about how best to meet their students’ needs. To
make these kinds of decisions, teachers need information that they can trust about students’ strengths and weaknesses,
knowledge and understandings. In an instructional context, a diagnostic assessment is one in which “assessment
results provide information about students’ mastery of relevant prior knowledge and skills within the domain as well as
preconceptions or misconceptions about the material” (Ketterlin-Geller & Yovanoff, 2009, p. 1). As Wixson and Valencia
(2011) define it, “Diagnostics refer to assessments that help identify a student’s specific strengths and weakness for the
purpose of planning instruction and identifying appropriate interventions” (p. 467).

48 49
 Studies attest to the benefits of using effective diagnostic measures—and tailoring instruction and supplemental practice
according to the results of the diagnostics (for example, see Mayes, Chase, & Walker, 2008). Today’s classrooms often
include students with a wide variety of prerequisite skills and knowledge levels, and diagnostic assessment can help to
identify the best instructional approach for each student at the outset, so that instructional time is not wasted.
Particularly in early reading, effective diagnostic assessment is essential. Because learning to read is complex and involves
many different skills, identifying students’ ability with each skill is important for tailoring instruction effectively to each
student’s needs. Tools that address each component of early reading in a valid way are important—and, fortunately
for today’s educators, “recent scientific advances in early literacy assessment have provided schools with access to
critical information about students’ foundational beginning-reading skills” (Coyne & Harn, 2006, 43). Including specific
assessments of specific skills is essential. As Fuchs and Fuchs (2006) put it: “. . . an assessment method with demonstrated
validity for beginning decoding skills may be invalid for assessing reading comprehension” (p. 98).
Formative Assessment
“Effective instruction depends on sound instructional decision-making, which in turn, depends on reliable data regarding
students’ strengths, weaknesses, and progress in learning content . . . ” (National Institute for Literacy, 2007, p. 27). The
phrase formative assessment encompasses the wide variety of activities—formal and informal—that teachers employ
throughout the learning process to gather this kind of instructional data to assess student understanding and to make and
adapt instructional decisions. Formative assessment is not an end in itself; the goal is not to assign a grade, for example; but
rather, its purpose is to guide instruction. Formative assessment moves testing from the end into the middle of instruction, to
guide teaching and learning as it occurs (Heritage, 2007).
Educators agree on the benefits of ongoing assessment in the classroom. “Well-designed assessment can have tremendous
impact on students’ learning . . . if conducted regularly and used by teachers to alter and improve instruction” (National
Research Council, 2007, p. 344). Several reviews of instructional practices used by effective teachers have revealed that
effective teachers use formal tools (such as quizzes or homework assignments) and informal tools (such as discussion and
observation) to regularly monitor student learning and check student progress (Cotton, 1995; Christenson, Ysseldyke, &
Thurlow, 1989). In a study of student learning in a multimedia environment, Johnson and Mayer (2009) found that students
who took a practice test after studying multimedia material outperformed students who studied the material again (without
the assessment). Stecker, Fuchs, and Fuchs (2005) examined research on curriculum-based measurement, in which teachers
used outcomes-based assessments regularly to monitor student progress, and found that the use of these assessments
produced significant gains—when teachers used the data to make appropriate adjustments to instruction.
Research shows that regularly assessing and providing feedback to students on their performance is a highly effective tool
for teachers to produce significant—and often substantial—gains in student learning and performance (Black & Wiliam,
1998a, 1998b). Formative assessment is particularly important in early reading instruction. Regular assessment and
subsequent tailored instruction is necessary for foundational skills because of the interconnected and sequential nature of
learning: “Because the ability to obtain meaning from print depends so strongly on the development of word recognition
accuracy and reading fluency, both of the latter should be regularly assessed in the classroom, permitting timely and
effective instructional response where difficulty or delay is apparent” (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998, 7).
Formative assessment strengthens student learning and increases teachers’ sense of self-efficacy. As Coyne and Horn
(2006) argue, “Data from ongoing formative assessments reinforce teachers’ efforts as they see tangible evidence of student
progress and, as a result, increase the social validity and perceived importance of systematic reading instruction and
intervention” (p. 43).
50
Benchmark and Summative Assessment
It is important for students and teachers to have an assessment of learning that can serve as a cumulative evaluation
to measure growth at the end point of instruction or to assess whether long-term goals have been met. High-quality
benchmark and summative assessments help teachers evaluate their curriculum and how well their students have met
educational benchmarks. Not only are benchmark assessments important to instructional planning, some types of
assessment are even legislated. The 2004 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) states that assessment should
include “data-based documentation of repeated assessments of achievement at reasonable intervals” (U.S. Department of
Education, 2004).
As Wixson and Valencia (2011) explain, “Benchmark progress monitoring refers to data gathered at predetermined times
of the year to ascertain if students are making adequate progress in overall performance in relation to age or grade
expectations or benchmarks” while “summative outcome assessment refers to data gathered at the end of the year to
determine effectiveness of instruction and student year-end performance . . .” (p. 468).
When designing an effective summative assessment, it is crucial to allow for different types of performance. Research
supports that looking at multiple means of assessment is the best way to capture a whole picture of student learning. As
noted by Krebs’s(2005) research, using one data point, such as written responses, to evaluate and assess students’ learning
can be “incomplete and incorrect conclusions might be drawn . . .” (p. 411). Variety in assessment item types is essential
when designing an effective summative assessment.
Preparation for Standardized Tests
Teachers play an important role in developing the skills and understandings students need to perform well on standardized
assessments of their learning. An effective instructional program prepares students for standardized tests by teaching core
content and skills, as well as how to take the test, including answering multiple-choice and other items and analyzing ideas
to respond to essay questions (Oberjuerge, 1999). McCabe (2003) emphasizes this role as well, suggesting that to best
build students’ self-efficacy beliefs around testing, teachers should practice with test-like materials and model test-taking,
among other instructional strategies. In a meta-analysis of psychological, educational, and behavioral interventions, Lipsey
and Wilson (1993) found that coaching in test-taking skills and administration of practice tests were effective in improving
student performance on tests.
Because some teachers may feel resistance to “teaching to the test” (see Hornof, 2008, and Santman, 2002) and be
concerned that test preparation may water down the curriculum (see Au, 2007), it is important that test preparation
materials or instructional suggestions mirror the elements of research-based effective instruction (Greene & Melton, 2007).
Hornof (2008) recommends that teachers consider analyze the strategies used to successfully complete a standardized
assessment measure, define test-specific vocabulary, model effective strategies, and build strategies for the increased
stamina students will need when taking the assessment. Additionally, reading teachers who focus on purposeful reading,
genre analysis, and answering varied questions in response to texts will be effectively preparing students for reading
assessments.
51
 From Research to Practice Formative Assessment in Journeys Common Core
The Journeys Common Core program offers multiple tools that enable teachers to use formative assessment to inform
instruction. Assessments include formal and informal tools, designed to be used daily, weekly, periodically, and on a case-
by-case basis. These formative tools include

• Daily Assessment—The Journeys Common Core Teacher’s Edition provides point-of-use Daily Assessment
features to quickly monitor student understanding.
• Weekly Tests—The Weekly Tests in the Grab-and-Go format are group-administered tests that offer weekly
assessment of key skills and strategies and help to inform decisions about reteaching or differentiated instruction.
• Diagnostic Assessment—The Diagnostic Assessment tests can be used to monitor student progress on a key
skill and to identify focused instruction to meet specific students’ needs.
• Cold Reads—The Cold Reads booklets provide passages that gradually increase in complexity, accompanied with
comprehension questions that require students to examine and cite text evidence.
• myWriteSmart—Provides performance assessments that can be used as formative tools to track student progress
on complex, multistep tasks that include text-based writing.
• Online Assessment System—Online assessmentfeatures that can help to inform instruction include automatic
scoring and reporting, prescriptions for reteaching to meet the Common Core State Standards, the Student Profile
System to track student growth, and reports for teachers, administrators, and parents.
Diagnostic and Screening Assessments in Journeys Common Core • Periodic Assessments—The Observation Checklists and Periodic Assessments in the Grab-and-Go provide
The Journeys Common Core program offers multiple tools to support teachers’ diagnoses of students’ strengths and teachers with helpful tools for ongoing assessment.
weaknesses.
To see some specific examples of formative assessments in the Journeys Common Core program, see the pages listed in the
At the entry level, Journeys Common Core offers the Comprehensive Screening table that follows.
Assessment for grades 2 through 6, group-administered tests that provide Examples of Formative Assessment in Journeys Common Core
initial screening of grade-appropriate skills (for example,
Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6
at Grade 3: phonics/decoding, writing, language
arts, comprehension and vocabulary, and spelling).
Daily Daily Daily Daily Daily Daily Daily
For the lower grades (K and 1), the Emerging
Assessment Assessment Assessment Assessment Assessment Assessment Assessment
Literacy Survey provides individually administered
K-1: T42, 1-1: BTS5, BTS9, 2-1: xxiii, T19, 3-1: T19, T28, 4-1: T15, T24, 5-1: T15, T22, 6-5: xvi, T15,
assessments of foundational skills.
T53, T78, BTS11, BTS15, T21, T30, T39, T46, T76, T111, T26, T31, T41, T26, T31, T41, T20, T28, T31,
For a more detailed diagnostic, Journeys Common Core T84-T85, T136, BTS17, T21, T41, T59, T63, T131, T138, T45, T89, T96, T45, T56, T89, T41, T45, T89,
provides the Diagnostic Assessment, individually 1:T147, T172, T37, T47, T48, T128, T137, T139, T168, T102, T107, T96, T102, T94, T100,
administered tests with results that provide targeted T178-T179, T59, T74-T75, T145, T146, T205, T227, T117, T121, T107, T123, T107, T117,
suggestions to inform instruction and grouping. T230, T241 T80, T86-T87 T157 T234, T264, T165, T172, T127, T138, T121, T165,
T299, T321, T178, T183, T171, T178, T172, T174,
T328, T358, T195, T199, T182, T189, T181, T191,
T393, T415, T243 T199 T195, T239,
T422 T244, T248

Progress Weekly Tests Progress Weekly Tests Weekly Tests Weekly Tests Progress
Monitoring 1-4: T182, T183, Monitoring 3-1: T70-T71, 4-1: T56-T57, 5-1: T56-T57, Monitoring
K-1: E3, E5, E7, T284; 1-5: T76, 2-1: E3, E5, E7, T162-T163, T132-T133, T138-T139, 6-5: T56, T132,
E9, E11, E43, T77, T176-T177 E9,:E11, E13, T258-T259, T210-T211, T214-T215, T206, T284,
E45, E47, E49 E15, E17, E19, T352-T253, T284-T285, T288-T289, T360
E21 T446-T447 T362-T363 T362-T363

52 53
 In addition, rubrics are a valuable tool in formative assessment because teachers can use them both to assess student work
and to communicate the criteria used for evaluating the work. Journeys Common Core provides rubrics for teachers and
students to use in the program’s Resource section of the Teacher’s Edition.
Benchmark and Summative Assessment in Journeys Common Core
The Journeys Common Core program provides teachers with the data needed to make informed instructional decisions and
guide students on the path to success. Teachers can use assessments to determine which Common Core State Standards
have been mastered—and which require additional instruction.
• Benchmark and Unit Tests (K–6) are group-administered, end-of-unit tests. They assess reading, vocabulary, language
arts, and writing. They also include Performance Tasks that assess students’ ability to read and comprehend complex
text and cite text-based evidence. Unit Tests and Benchmarks are given in alternate units; the Benchmark Tests include
skills from previous units to verify continued proficiency.
Preparation for Standardized Tests in Journeys Common Core
The Journeys Common Core program prepares students to meet the demands of standardized assessments and
demonstrate their achievement on Common Core State Standards.
The Weekly Tests in the program’s Grab-and-Go are group-administered tests that provide students with practice
reading the types of passages and answering the types of questions that they will encounter on standardized tests. This
weekly assessment of key skills and strategies—such as target vocabulary, vocabulary strategies, comprehension, phonics/
decoding, and language arts—helps teachers ensure that they provide the reteaching and/or differentiated instruction that
students need to meet the Common Core State Standards.
• Test Power helps to prepare students for the Common Core State Standards assessments with weekly skills lessons
and tests and end-of-year practice tests. It also includes Performance Tasks that assess students’ ability to read and
comprehend complex text and cite text-based evidence.
54
Strand 6: Meeting All Students’ Needs
Optimal learning takes place
within students’ “zones of
Defining the Strand
proximal development”—when
Effective instruction successfully meets the needs of students with a wide teachers assess students’ current
range of ability levels and backgrounds. Effective teachers differentiate understanding and teach new
instruction. Effective curricular programs address the needs of all students, concepts, skills, and strategies at
including struggling students and advanced learners. A wide body of
an according level.
research supports the idea that for learning to occur, learning activities
must align to the needs of the learner (Tomlinson & Allan, 2000; Valencia,
2007). Learners’ needs, however, differ not only among students but Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86
also for individual students at different times and in different areas of the
language arts. Therefore, in order to meet a student’s individual needs,
Effective scaffolding aligned with
effective teachers must assess frequently and differentiate instruction the standards should result in the
accordingly. reader encountering the text on
its own terms, with instructions
Any reader can struggle with a particular text. The struggling readers
providing helpful directions that
who need scaffolds and differentiated instruction, though, are the ones
who struggle with most texts—those who lack the strategies to make
focus students on the text. Follow-
sense of what they read and the engagement to persist in what they read. up support should guide the
High-quality instruction for these students includes authentic purposes reader when encountering places
for reading and writing across content areas, the use of specific scaffolds in the text where he or she might
and lessons that teach essential strategies (Collins, 1998; Cunningham & struggle.
Allington, 2007; Lipson, 2011; Lipson & Wixson, 2008). Increasing these
students’ motivation is also essential. Coleman & Pimentel, 2011
Using a proven model to identify needs and provide timely intervention
to students with difficulties is particularly important in the early reading
classroom (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006). The Response to Intervention model offers schools and teachers a model for supporting
the range of students in today’s classroom with instruction that is aligned to their specific needs (Hall, Strangman, & Meyer,
2009). The Journeys Common Core Response to Intervention (RtI) model employs regular assessment and interventions at
different tiers, or levels, to determine students’ needs and provide the intensity of support required. More specifics on how
Journeys Common Core supports instruction for all students are provided in the following sections of this report.
Research that Guided the Development of the Journeys Common Core Program
Struggling Readers
Not all struggling readers struggle for the same reasons. They differ in their needs for instruction (Valencia, 2010). Some
need additional instruction in phonics, decoding and word recognition. Others need instruction focused more closely
on comprehension strategies (Pressley, Gaskins, & Fingeret, 2006). What these students do not need is slowed-down
instruction, which will ensure that they remain behind their peers (Allington & Walmsley, 1995).
55
 For students who need to develop strategic reading, demonstrations of effective strategy use and continued opportunities Response to Intervention (RtI) is a model that integrates instruction, intervention, and assessment to create a more cohesive
to apply strategies learned are essential components of effective instruction (Cunningham & Allington, 2007; Allington, program of instruction that can result in higher student achievement (Mellard & Johnson, 2008). RtI is most commonly
2001; Fielding & Pearson, 1994; Armbruster, Anderson, & Ostertag, 1987; Raphael & Pearson, 1985; Baumann, 1984; depicted as a three-tier model where Tier 1 represents general instruction and constitutes primary prevention. Students
Pikulski, 1994). Struggling readers benefit from the same instructional strategies from which all learners benefit, but also at this level respond well to the general curriculum and learn reasonably well without additional support. Tier 2 represents
benefit from more intensive instruction on skills (Au, 2002). Readers who struggle with comprehension struggle with using a level of intervention for students who are at moderate risk. Students at Tier 2 receive some supplementary support in
reading comprehension strategies, such as summarizing, making inferences, or monitoring their comprehension (Dole, addition to Tier 1 instruction. Tier 3 typically represents students who need more extensive, intensive, and specialized
Duffy, Roehler, & Pearson, 1991). For these struggling readers, explicit instruction in the flexible use of these comprehension intervention, sometimes including special education services (Smith & Johnson, 2011).
strategies is particularly helpful. Graphic organizers and predictable learning sequences have been shown to be effective
with struggling learners (Collins, 1998) as have integrating reading and writing, setting authentic purposes for literacy In implementing RtI in the early reading classroom, the use of effective assessments is essential. As the International Reading
activities, and providing consistently high-quality classroom instruction (Cunningham & Allington, 2007). Association (IRA) statement (2010) on RtI advises, “An RtI approach demands assessment that can inform language and
literacy instruction meaningfully. Assessment should reflect the multidimensional nature of language and literacy. . . . ”
Increasing the motivation of struggling readers is particularly important because of the close connection between According to Griffiths, VanDerHeyden, Parson, and Burns (2006), an effective RtI model should include three elements:
motivation and reading achievement, as discussed in the earlier section of this report on engagement and motivation.
1. Systematic assessment and collection of data to identify students’ needs;
Advanced Learners 2. The use of effective interventions in response to the data; and
3. Continued assessment of students to determine the effectiveness of interventions—and the need for any additional
Like English language learners and struggling learners, advanced learners require differentiation in their instruction as well.
intervention.
Those who are advanced need to be sufficiently engaged to continue to challenge themselves. Differentiation in activities
and delivery can accomplish this purpose (Rogers, 2007; Tomlinson, 1995, 1997; VanTassel-Baska & Brown, 2007), as can
centering activities around issues, problems, and themes that are of interest and relevant to these students (VanTassel-Baska
& Brown, 2007).
From Research to Practice
Struggling Readers in Journeys Common Core
A number of practices have been identified by research as particularly effective with advanced students. A learning
environment with the following characteristics has been demonstrated to be effective: Throughout, the Journeys Common Core program provides suggestions for differentiated instruction to meet the needs of
struggling readers.
• Ongoing assessment of students, in varied modes likely to give students the most opportunity to demonstrate their
knowledge and skill; Differentiated Instruction for Struggling Readers in Journeys Common Core
• Multiple learning options and varied instructional strategies;
Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6
• Variable pacing;
• Engaging tasks for all learners; and K-1: T4, T76, 1-1: T78, T80, 2-1: T78-T79, 3-1: T76, T78, 4-1: T60-T61, 5-1: T60-T61, 6-5: T64, T70,
• Flexible grouping (Tomlinson, 1995). T78, T80, T82, T82, T84, T86, T80, T82, T84, T80, T88, T168, T62, T64, T66, T142-T143, T140, T146,
T86, T90, T98 T88, T92 T86, T88, T92 T170, T172 T70, T136-T137 T218-T219, T214, T220,
T292-T293 T292, T298,
Rogers (2007) adds that advanced learners need daily challenge, opportunities to work with peers, and varied instructional T372, T378
delivery. Additionally, while group work and working with peers are beneficial for these students, independent learning is a
key to an effective instructional program to challenge these advanced learners. Research suggests that “gifted learners are The Journeys Common Core program was designed to support the learning of all students. The effective instructional
significantly more likely to prefer independent study, independent project, and self-instructional materials” (Rogers, 2002). practices throughout the program support struggling readers in multiple ways and provide guidance for implementing daily
Therefore whole group, small group, and independent activities will all serve specific purposes in meeting the needs of individualized instruction with struggling readers. The authors of Journeys Common Core recognize that while “ambitious
advanced students. outcomes are appropriate for all students, one-size-fits-all instruction is not the best we can do.” (Lipson, 2011)

Response to Intervention
Both differentiated instruction and Response to Intervention (RtI) “share a central goal: to modify instruction until it meets
the needs of all learners” (Demirsky, Allan & Goddard, 2010). According to Demirsky, Allan and Goddard (2010), these two
instructional approaches are complementary and share the premises that all students have different academic needs and
that teachers must teach accordingly to meet these needs and to ensure student success. While differentiation is generally
used to respond to the needs of diverse learners in the classroom, RtI is envisioned as a prevention system with multiple
layers—a structured way to help students who are struggling before they fall behind their peers—and so it focuses on early,
and ongoing, identification of needs and tiers of responses.
Scaffolded reading materials include Write-In Readers, which provide scaffolding and support for readers who struggle
(those reading at a year or more below reading level). Leveled Readers also provide texts written specifically to support
struggling readers. Both types of materials can serve as an “on-ramp” into more complex texts for students who need help.
The Week at a Glance at the beginning of each lesson provides an overview of the week’s strategic intervention
instruction—which is then elaborated more fully in the back of the Teacher’s Edition, where specific suggestions are
provided for strategic intervention to meet the needs of struggling readers.

56 57
 Online, the Journeys Common Core program provides oral language support to help students practice thinking and Tier II: Core Program + Strategic Intervention
comprehension skills in a scaffolded environment. Online, students can listen to the selections at a slower speed and at a
fluent reading speed. Specific features of the Write-In Reader eBook support struggling readers, including: When further intervention is needed, Strategic Intervention lessons can be found in the back of each Teacher’s Edition.
These lessons support students who are struggling with core content and incorporate the use of Journeys Write-In
• Dual-speed audio: fluent and emergent. Readers. Selections in the Write-In Readers match the main topics of Journeys lessons, are age-appropriate, and help
• Follow-Text feature for text tracking. students build the foundational and strategic skills for reading more complex texts. Stop, Think, Write activities in the
Write-In Readers are designed to support and reinforce the key skill or strategy. Look Back and Respond pages offer hints
Advanced Learners in Journeys Common Core that help students search the text for key information. Reading Detective pages scaffold students in reading increasingly
complex text by putting students in the role of reading detectives as they ask questions, look for clues, and write to
Throughout, the Journeys Common Core program provides suggestions for differentiated instruction to meet the needs of demonstrate evidence-based comprehension of the Anchor Text in the core program.
advanced learners.
Online, the Journeys program provides listening and reading support that benefit struggling readers. Students can listen to
Differentiated Instruction for Advanced Learners in Journeys Common Core the Write-In Reader selections online, both at a slower speed and at a fluent reading speed. Whiteboard features and hints
Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 provided online help to support students as they go deeper into texts to increase their comprehension.
K-1: T4, T76, 1-1: T78, T81, 2-1: T78-T79, 3-1: T77, T79, 4-1: T60-T61, 5-1: T60-T61, 6-5: T65, T71, In order to check student progress and identify further intervention needs, teachers can use the Progress Monitoring
T81, T83, 1:T88, T82, T83, T85, T81, T83, T85, T81, T89, T169, T63, T65, T68, T142-T143, T141, T147, Assessment (bi-weekly), which supports Tier II Strategic Intervention.
T91, T98 T90, T93 T90, T181 T171, T173 T71, T136-T137 T218-T219, T215, T221,
T292-T293 T293, T299, Tier III: Core Program + Strategic Intervention + Intensive Intervention
T373, T379
Used in conjunction with Tier I and Tier II, the Tier III Journeys Reading Tool Kits allow for targeted intensive intervention in
Leveled Readers in Journeys Common Core provide specific types of reading support for all students, whether they read specific skills.
on, below, or above grade level. Teachers at each grade level can search for leveled readers by reading level – below, on, or
above grade level – or by Fountas-Pinnell level. Leveled Readers noted by a blue square are written for Advanced Readers In the Primary Kit, the Journeys program provides targeted instruction and intervention in the five areas critical to reading
at each grade level. success—phonics, phonemic awareness, vocabulary, fluency and comprehension—through multiple tools, including:

Research suggests that whole-group, small-group, and independent learning are all important components of an • I Do, We Do, You Do organization that provides an important gradual-release model and scaffolds student learning
instructional program that will be effective for advanced learners. The Journeys Common Core program explicitly guides • 90 lessons in each of the five domains (for a total of 450 lessons)
teachers in how to use the Journeys Common Core materials in three different instructional contexts: Whole-Group • The Skill Index that enables teachers to easily personalize instruction.
Teaching, Small-Group Teaching, and Independent Literacy Work. Each Journeys Common Core lesson is organized around
Whole-Group Lessons, Small-Group activities, and Independent activities. In the Intermediate Literacy Tool Kit, the Journeys program
provides:
Finally, the Journeys Common Core program recognizes that a one-size fits all instructional program will not meet the needs
of all students. Even in the suggestions for specific populations, such as English Language Learners, the Journeys Common • focused instruction in key reading skills
Core program provides suggestions for differentiating the level of instruction. • activities that can be used for small-group or individual
instruction
• leveled books that offer additional reading and skill
application
Response to Intervention in Journeys Common Core
• assessment that evaluates the effectiveness of the Tier III
The Journeys Common Core program was designed to support the learning of all students. intervention

Tier I: Core Program

A comprehensive assessment system, which allows for teachers to consider multiple measures of student performance, is a
Throughout Journeys lessons, teachers will find scaffolds, differentiated instruction, and options for reteaching so that strength of the Journeys Common Core program. In addition to the many print materials available to teachers and students,
learners at many levels can meet with success. Journeys Digital also offers:

• Online Tests with automatic scoring and reporting;
• Common Core State Standards correlations;
• Prescriptions for reteaching to meet Common Core
State Standards;
58
• Student Profile System to track student growth;
• Reports for teachers, administrators, and parents.
59
 Research shows that instruction
in the key components of reading
Strand 7: Meeting the Needs of English identified by the National Literacy ELLs and has been shown to lead to higher levels of comprehension among these students (Klingner & Vaughn, 2004). ELLs
Panel—phonemic awareness, also benefit from grammar instruction, embedded in the context of writing experiences (Scarcella, 2003), and the use of
Language Learners phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and technology—including word processing (Silver & Repa, 1993).
text comprehension—has clear
Defining the Strand In addition, ELLs have some specific instructional needs. Added instructional time, through grouping or other arrangements,
benefits for ELLs as well as for other
While English language learners (ELLs) benefit from the same best-practice students (August & Shanahan, benefits these students (Linan-Thompson, Cirino, & Vaughn, 2007). Additional instruction in vocabulary—and specifically
instruction that research has shown to be effective with native speakers, 2006). However, there is a growing in academic language—is essential (Francis, Rivera, Lesaux, Kieffer, & Rivera, 2006a; Carlo et al., 2004; Zimmerman,
Short and Fitzsimmons (2007) suggest the following promising practices consensus that ELLs are less 1997; Rousseau, Tam, & Ramnarain, 1993; Perez, 1981). While ELLs are likely to acquire conversational English easily,
for developing literacy among ELLs: likely to struggle with the basic academic language is most likely acquired through direct instruction and classroom experiences (Teale, 2009; Jacobson,
skills—phonemic awareness and Lapp, & Flood, 2007; August & Shanahan, 2006). For ELLs, academic vocabulary can take much more time to master than
1. Integrated reading, writing, listening, and speaking instruction phonics—than with the last three conversational English (DeLuca, 2010).
2. Explicit instruction in the components and processes of reading components—fluency, vocabulary,
and writing and comprehension. These are the Instruction that connects the visual and the verbal, multimodal instruction, appears to lead to achievement gains among
3. Direct instruction in reading comprehension strategies areas that cause many students, this population (Early & Marshall, 2008; McGinnis, 2007). For students struggling with vocabulary acquisition, instructional
4. A focus on vocabulary development especially ELLs, to falter in mid- strategies that employ students’ visual, nonlinguistic modes of learning—such as drawing pictures to represent words or
5. Development and activation of background knowledge elementary school when they are webs to show relationships between ideas—can be particularly effective.
6. Theme- and content-based language instruction expected to make the transition
7. Strategic use of native language from “learning to read” to “reading
8. Integrated technology use to learn” (Francis et al., 2006a). From Research to Practice
9. Increasing motivation through choice When working with ELLs to improve
their literacy, it is important that English Language Learners in Journeys Common Core
In addition, ELLs “require effective instructional approaches and teachers choose interventions that
interventions to prevent further difficulties and to augment and support target the specific difficulties each Journeys Common Core provides strong support to teachers—and ample learning opportunities for ELLs.
their academic development” (Francis et al., 2006a, 1). student is experiencing. Units open with a section on Planning for English Language Development. Here, teachers are guided with suggestions
Huebner (2009) advises teachers of ELLs that “when selecting a program, for the sequence and content of instruction and specific strategies and materials for ELLs.
Huebner, 2009, p. 90
educators should ensure that it … recognize[s] all the areas of essential Suggestions are provided for:
literacy skills: phonological awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, and
comprehension.” Research shows that this strategy can help students • Vocabulary (including Tier 1/High-Utility Words and Tiers 2 and 3/Target Vocabulary and Reading/Language
perform at or above grade level and sustain high performance. (91) Arts Terms)
• Scaffolding Comprehension
In the Journeys Common Core program, specific suggestions and materials support the needs of ELLs. Teachers are • Scaffolding Writing
provided ample guidance on how best to meet the needs of this population. More specifics are provided in the following • Scaffolding Grammar
pages of this report.

Research that Guided the Development of Journeys Common Core

English Language Learners
ELLs benefit from the same kinds of effective instructional strategies from which all learners benefit (Chiappe & Siegel, 2006;
Proctor, Carlo, August, & Snow, 2005). The five key components of reading, as identified by the National Reading Panel
(2000), are clearly helpful to second language learners—including instruction in phonemic awareness and phonics (Mathes,
Pollard-Durodola, Cárdenas-Hagan, Linan-Thompson, & Vaughn, 2007), fluency, comprehension, and vocabulary—as is
explicit instruction in oral language and in writing strategies and structures (August & Shanahan, 2006; Vaughn, Mathes,
Linan-Thompson, & Francis, 2005). Francis, Rivera, Lesaux, Kieffer, and Rivera (2006a) suggest that while the first two are
particularly important for early readers, the last three components are critical during all stages of reading development.
For ELLs, providing multiple exposures to vocabulary in varied instructional contexts is essential. For these students, it is
particularly important that vocabulary instruction incorporate oral, reading, and writing activities (Francis, Rivera, Lesaux,
Kieffer, & Rivera, 2006a). Explicit instruction in strategies for comprehension is an important part of an instructional plan for
60 61
 Throughout every lesson, Journeys Common Core provides the scaffolding that ELLs need to read complex texts and meet References
high standards.

The following resources provide support to ELLs and their teachers. Abrami, P. C., Lou, Y., Chambers, B., Poulsen, C., Spence, J. C., & Abrami, P. C. (2000). Why should we group students within-class
for learning? Educational Research & Evaluation, 6(2), 158-179.
• Daily ELL lessons and Language Support Cards connect to the core content and provide visuals and
reinforcement that can be used with small groups. Achieve, Inc. (2005). Rising to the challenge: Are high school graduates prepared for college and work? Washington, DC: Author.

• ELL Blackline Masters offer specific instructional activities to accompany the daily ELL lessons. ACT. (2005). Crisis at the core: Preparing all students for college and work. Iowa City: Author. Retrieved June 23, 2012, from http://
www.act.org/research/policymakers/pdf/crisis_report.pdf
• English Language Learner Leveled Readers offer sheltered text that connects to the main selection’s topic,
ACT. (2007). Writing framework for the 2011 National Assessment for Educational Progress, pre-publication edition. Washington, DC:
vocabulary, skill and strategy and include an audio CD which models oral reading fluency. The accompanying National Assessment Governing Board.
Teacher’s Guides provide instructional support.
ACT. (2009). The condition of college readiness 2009. Iowa City, IA: Author.
• Point-of-Use Scaffolded Support in the Teacher’s Edition helps ELLs access the core content with the whole
group. Adams, M.J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of Illinois, Reading
Research and Education Center.
• Vocabulary in Context Cards provide ELLs visual support when learning Target Vocabulary. Adey, P. S., & Shayer, M. (1993). An exploration of the long-term far-transfer effects following an extended intervention programme
in the high school science curriculum. Cognition and Instruction, 11(1), 1–29.
• ELL Teacher’s Handbook contains professional development and teaching resources, such as leveled BLMs for
writing conferences and cooperative learning. Afflerbach, P. (1986). The influence of prior knowledge on expert readers’ importance assignment processes. In J. A. Niles & R. V.
Lalik (Eds.), National reading conference yearbook. Vol. 35: Solving problems in literacy: Learners, teachers, and researchers.
The following Teacher’s Edition page references show sample Daily ELL Lessons, Point-of-Use Scaffolds, and Rochester, NY: National Reading Conference.
Differentiated Instruction in grades K­–6 . Alfassi, M. (2004) Reading to learn: Effects of combined strategy instruction on high school students. The Journal of Educational
Research, 97(4), 171-184.
Journeys Common Core Teacher’s Edition
Allington, R. (2001). What really matters for struggling readers: Designing research-based programs. New York: Addison-Wesley.
Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6
Allington, R., & Walmsley, S. (1995). No quick fix: Rethinking literacy programs in America’s elementary schools. New York: Teachers
K-1: T14, T18, 1-1: E1-E11, 2-1: E1-E11, 3-1: T16, T18, 4-1: T52, T63, 5-1: T30, T32, 6-1: T61, College Press.
T24, E2, E4, E6, T16, T20, T26 T22, T32, T36 T77, T79, T81, T65, T69, T71, T36, T40, T45, T66-T67, T71,
E8, E10 T89, T108, T110 T81, T88, T90 T46 T72-T73 Anglin, J. M. (1993). Vocabulary development: A morphological analysis. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child
Development (Serial No. 238), 58 (10).

Annetta, L.A., & Holmes, S. (2006). Creating presence and community in a synchronous virtual learning environment using
avatars. International journal of instructional technology and distance learning, 3(8). Retrieved June 23, 2012 from
And finally, Journeys Digital provides online tools and resources for both teachers and ELLs: http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Aug_06/article03.htm
For students: Appalachia Educational Laboratory (AEL). (2005). Research digest: Effective instructional strategies. Charleston, WV: Author.
Retrieved June 23, 2012 from http://www.edvantia.org/pdta/pdf/Effective_Instructional_Strategies.pdf
• Picture Bank Card Online
Applebee, A.N. (1981). Writing in the secondary school: English and the content areas. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of
• Multimedia Grammar Glossary English.
• ELL Leveled Reader Online
• Vocabulary Reader Online Applebee, A., & Langer, J. (2006). The state of writing instruction: What existing data tell us. Albany, NY: Center on English Learning
• Cross-Curricular Activity Bank and Achievement.

Applebee, A.N., Langer, J.A., Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (2003). Discussion-based approaches to developing understanding:
For teachers: Classroom instruction and student performance in middle and high school English. American Educational Research
Journal, 40(3), 685-730.
• ELD Station Online
• Leveled Reader Teacher’s Guide Armbruster, B. B., Anderson, T. H., & Ostertag, J. (1987). Does text structure/summarization instruction facilitate learning from
expository text? Reading Research Quarterly, 22(3), 331-346.
• Leveled Readers Database
Aronoff, M. (1994). Morphology. In Purves, A. C., Papa, L., & Jordan, S. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of English studies and language arts,
Vol. 2 (pp. 820-821). New York: Scholastic.

62 63
 Atwell, N. (1987). In the middle. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Atwell, N. (1989). Coming to know: Writing to learn in the intermediate grades. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Atwell, N. (1998). In the middle: New understandings about writing, reading, and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Au, K. H. (2002). Multicultural factors and the effective instruction of students of diverse backgrounds. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J.
Samuels (Eds.) What research has to say about reading instruction (392-413). Newark, Delaware: International Reading
Association.
Au, W. (2007). High-stakes testing and curricular control: A qualitative metasynthesis. Educational Researcher, 36(5), 258-268.
August, D. & Shanahan, T. (Eds.) (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: A report of the National Literacy Panel on
Language-Minority Children and Youth. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ausubel, D. P. (1960). The use of advance organizers in the learning and retention of meaningful verbal material. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 51(5), 267-272.
Ausubel, D.P. (1963). The psychology of meaningful verbal learning. New York: Grune and Stratton.
Baker, J. A., Clark, T. P., Maier, K. S., & Viger, S. (2008). The differential influence of instructional context on the academic
engagement of students with behavior problems. Teacher and Teacher Education, 24(7), 1876-1883.
Baker, S. K., Simmons, D. C., & Kame’enui, E. J. (1995a). Vocabulary acquisition: Curricular and instructional implications for diverse
learners, Technical report no. 13. University of Oregon: National Center to Improve Tools for Educators.
Baker, S. K., Simmons, D. C., & Kame’enui, E. J. (1995b). Vocabulary acquisition: Synthesis of the research, Technical report no. 13.
University of Oregon: National Center to Improve Tools for Educators.
Ball, A. F. (2006). Teaching writing in culturally diverse classrooms. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook
of writing research (293-310). New York: The Guilford Press.
Baumann, J. F. (1984). The Effectiveness of a Direct Instruction Paradigm for Teaching Main Idea Comprehension. Reading Research
Quarterly, 20(1), 93-115.
Baumann, J. F., & Kame’enui, E. J. (1991). Research on vocabulary instruction: Ode to Voltaire. In J. Flood, J. Jensen, D. Lapp, & J. R.
Squire (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (604-632). New York: Macmillan.
Baumann, J. F., & Kame’enui, E. J. (Eds.). (2004). Vocabulary instruction: Research to practice. New York: Guilford Press.
Baumann, J.F., Kame’enui, E.J., & Ash, G.E. (2003). Research on vocabulary instruction: Voltaire redux. In J. Flood, D. Lapp, J.R.
Squire, & J.M. Jensen (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (2nd ed., pp. 752–785). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Bear, D.R., Invernizzi, M., Templeton, S., & Johnston, F. (2012). Words their way: Word study for phonics, vocabulary, and spelling
instruction (5th Ed.). Boston: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing words to life: robust vocabulary instruction. New York: Guilford Press.
Beck, I., McKeown, M., & Kucan, L. (2008). Creating robust vocabulary: Frequently asked questions. New York: Guilford Press.
Berninger, V. W., Abbott, R. D., Abbott, S. P., Graham, S., & Richards, T. (2002). Writing and reading: Connections between
language by hand and language by eye. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35(1), 39-56.
Berninger, V. W., Abbott, R. D., Nagy, W., & Carlisle, J. (2010). Growth in phonological, orthographic, and morphological awareness
in grades 1 to 6. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 39(2), 141–163.
Beverly, B.L., Giles, R.M., & Buck, K.L. (2009). First-grade reading gains following enrichment: Phonics plus decodable texts
compared to authentic literature read aloud. Reading Improvement, 46(4), 191-205.
64
Biancarosa, G., & Snow, C. E. (2006). Reading next—A vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy: A report to
Carnegie Corporation of New York (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education. Retrieved June 23, 2012 from
http://www.all4ed.org/files/archive/publications/ReadingNext/ReadingNext.pdf
Biemiller, A. (2004). Teaching vocabulary in the primary grades: Vocabulary instruction needed. In J. F. Baumann & E. J. Kame’enui
(Eds.), Vocabulary instruction: Research to Practice (pp. 28-40). New York: Guilford Press.
Biemiller, A. (2005). Size and sequence in vocabulary development: Implications for choosing words for primary grade vocabulary
instruction. In E. H. Hiebert & M. L. Kamil (Eds.), Teaching and learning vocabulary: Bringing research to practice (pp. 223-
242). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Biemiller, A., & Boote, C. (2006). An effective method for building meaning vocabulary in primary grades. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 98(1), 44-62.
Bischoff, A. (2000). The elements of effective online teaching: Overcoming the barriers to success. In K. White & B. H. Weight
(Eds.), The online teaching guide: A handbook of attitudes, strategies, and techniques for the virtual classroom (pp. 57-72).
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Blachowicz, C. L., & Fisher, P. (2000). Vocabulary instruction. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.)
Handbook of reading research, Vol. 2 (789-814). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998a). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2),
139-148.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998b). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy, and Practice, 5(1),
7-73.
Bohn, C. M., Roehrig, A. D., & Pressley, M. (2004). The first days of school in the classrooms of two more effective and four less
effective primary-grades teachers. Elementary School Journal, 104, 269-287.
Bowers, P. N., & Kirby, J. R. (2010). Effects of morphological instruction on vocabulary acquisition. Reading and Writing: An
Interdisciplinary Journal. 23(5), 515-537.
Britt, M., & Aglinskas, C. (2002). Improving students’ ability to identify and use source information. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4),
485-522.
Burns, M.K., Appleton, J.J., & Stehouwer, J.D. (2005). Metaanalytic review of responsiveness-to-intervention research: Examining
field-based and research-implemented models. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 381-394.
Caine, R. N., & Caine, G. (1997a). Education on the edge of possibility. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Caine, R. N., & Caine, G. (1997b). Unleashing the power of perceptual change: The potential of brain-based teaching. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Calkins, L.M. (1994). The art of teaching writing (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Cantrell, S. C., Almasi, J. F., Carter, J. C., Rintamaa, M., & Madden, A. (2010). The impact of a strategy-based intervention on the
comprehension and strategy use of struggling adolescent readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(2), 257–280.
Carlisle, J. F. (2010). Effects of instruction in morphological awareness on literacy achievement: An integrative review. Reading
Research Quarterly, 45(4), 464–487.
Carlo, M. S., August, D., McLaughlin, B., Snow, C. E., Dressler, C., Lippman, D., et al. (2004). Closing the gap: Addressing the
vocabulary needs for English language learners in bilingual and mainstream classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 39,
188-215.
Castellani, J., & Jeffs, T. (2001). Emerging reading and writing strategies using technology. Teaching Exceptional Children, 33(5), 60-
67.
65
 Center for the Improvement of Early Reading (CIERA). (2003). Put reading first: The research building blocks for teaching children to
read. Ann Arbor, MI. Retrieved June 23, 2012 from http://www.nationalreadingpanel.org/publications/researchread.
htm
Chall, J. (1967). Learning to read: The great debate; an inquiry into the science, art, and ideology of old and new methods of teaching
children to read, 1910-1965. Columbus, OH: McGraw-Hill.
Chapman, M. (2006). Preschool through elementary writing. In P. Smagorinsky (Ed.), Research on composition: Multiple perspectives
on two decades of change (pp. 15-47). New York: Teachers College Press.
Chard, D. J., Pikulski, J. J., & McDonagh, S. H. (2006). Fluency: The link between decoding and comprehension for struggling
readers. In T. Rasinski, C. Blachowicz, & K. Lems (Eds.), Fluency instruction: Research-based best practices (39-61). New
York: Guilford Press.
Cheng, A. (2007). Simulation-based L2 writing instruction: Enhancement through genre analysis. Simulation and Gaming, 38(1),
67-82.
Chiappe, P., & Siegel, L. S. (2006). A longitudinal study of reading development of Canadian children from diverse linguistic
backgrounds. The Elementary School Journal, 107(2), 135-152).
Chiesi, H.L., Spilich, G.J., & Voss, J.F. (1979). Acquisition of domain-related information in relation to high and low domain
knowledge. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 257-274.
Christenson, S.L., Ysseldyke, J.E., & Thurlow, M.L. (1989). Critical instructional factors for students with mild handicaps: An
integrative review. Remedial and Special Education, 10(5), 21-31.
Clark, K. F., & Graves, M. F. (2008) Open and directed text mediation in literature instruction: Effects on comprehension and
attitudes. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 31(1), 9-29.
Clay, M. M. (1991). Becoming literate: The construction of inner control. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Coleman, D., & Pimentel, S. (2011). Publishers’ criteria for the Common Core State Standards in English Language Arts and Literacy,
grades 3-12. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers. Retrieved June 20, 2012 from http://www.
corestandards.org/assets/Publishers_Criteria_for_3-12.pdf
Collins, J. L. (1998). Strategies for struggling writers. New York: Guilford.
Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI). (2010a). Common core standards for English language arts and literacy in history/
social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). Retrieved
June 23, 2012 from http://www.corestandards.org/
Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI). (2010b). Mission Statement. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School
Officers (CCSSO). Retrieved June 23, 2012 from http://www.corestandards.org/
Connor-Greene, P. A.  (2000). Making connections:  Evaluating the effectiveness of journal writing in enhancing student
learning. Teaching of Psychology, 27, 44-46. 
Connor-Greene, P.A., & Murdoch, J.W. (2000). Does writing matter? Assessing the impact of daily essay quizzes in enhancing
student learning. Language and Learning Across the Disciplines, 4(1), 16-21.
Corden, R. (2007). Developing reading-writing connections: The impact of explicit instruction of literary devices on the quality of
children’s narrative writing. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 21(3), 269-289.
Cotton, K. (2000). The schooling practices that matter most. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Cotton, K. (1995). Effective schooling practices: A research synthesis 1995 update. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational
Laboratory. Retrieved March 10, 2012 from http://home.comcast.net/~reasoned/4410/PDFonCRM/Effective%20
School%20Prac.pdf
66
Coyne, M.D., & Harn, B.A. (2006). Promoting beginning reading success through meaningful assessment of early literacy skills.
Psychology in the Schools, 43(1), 33-43.
Coyne, M.D., Simmons, D.C., Kame’enui, E.J., & Stoolmiller, M. (2004). Teaching vocabulary during shared storybook readings: An
examination of differential effects. Exceptionality, 12(3), 145–162.
Craig, S. D., Sullins, J., Witherspoon, A., & Gholson, B. (2006). The deep-level reasoning effect: The role of dialogue and deep-level-
reasoning questions during vicarious learning. Cognition and Instruction, 24, 565-591.
Cunningham, A.E. (1989). Phonemic awareness: The development of early reading competency. Reading Research Quarterly, 24,
471-472.
Cunningham, P.M., & Allington, R.L. (2007). Classrooms that work: They can all read and write (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Daane, M.C., Campbell, J.R., Grigg, W.S., Goodman, M.J., & Oranje, A. (2005). Fourth-grade students reading aloud: NAEP 2002
special study of oral reading. National Center for Education Statistics: NCES 2006469. Retrieved June 23, 2012 from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2006469
De Graaff, S., Bosman, A.M.T., Hasselman, F., & Verhoeven, L. (2009). Benefits of systematic phonics instruction. Scientific Studies of
Reading, 13(4), 318-333.
DeLuca, E. (2010). Unlocking academic vocabulary. Science Teacher, 77(3), 27-32.
Demirsky Allan, S., & Goddard, Y.L. (2010). Differentiated instruction and RtI: A natural fit. Interventions that Work, 68(2).
Dickson, S., Simmons, D., & Kameenui, E. (1996). Text organization and its relation to reading comprehension: A synthesis of the
research. Oregon: University of Oregon.
Dixon-Krauss, L. (2001/2002). Using literature as a context for teaching vocabulary. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 45(4),
310-318.
Dolch, E.W. (1948). Problems in reading. Champaign, IL: Garrard Press.
Dole, J. A., Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., & Pearson, P. D. (1991). Moving from the old to the new: Research on reading comprehension
instruction. Review of Educational Research, 61, 239-264.
Dole, J. A., & Smith, E. L. (1989). Prior knowledge and learning from science text: An instructional study. In S. McCormick & J.
Zutell (Eds.), Cognitive and social perspectives for literacy research and instruction. (Thirty-eighth Yearbook of the National
Reading Conference, 345-352). Chicago, IL: National Reading Conference.
Dolezal, S.E., Welsh, L.M., Pressley, M., & Vincent, M.M. (2003). How nine third-grade teachers motivate student academic
engagement. Elementary School Journal, 103, 239-267.
Downing, S.O. (1995). Teaching writing for today’s demands. Language Arts, 72, 200-205.
Durkin, D. (2003). Teaching them to read (6th ed.). Needham, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Duffy, G. G. (2009). Explaining reading: A resource for teaching concepts, skills, and strategies (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.
Early, M. & Marshall, S. (2008). Adolescent ESL students’ interpretation and appreciation of literary texts: A case study of
multimodality. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 64(3), 377-397.
Eastburn, C. (2008). Teaching the write way. THE Journal, 35(7), 16-16.
Eccles, J.S., Wigfield, A., & Schiefele, U. (1998). Motivation to succeed. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Volume
3 – Social, emotional, and personality development (5th ed.). New York: Wiley.
Echevarria, J., Short, D., & Powers, K. (2003). School reform and standards-based education: How do teachers help English language
learners? Technical Report Santa Cruz, CA: Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and Excellence.
67
 Echevarria, J., Vogt, M.E., & Short, D. (2008). Making content comprehensible for English learners: The SIOP Model. Boston, MA: Allyn
& Bacon.
Echevarria, J., Vogt, M.E., & Short, D. (2010a). Making content comprehensible for elementary English learners: The SIOP® Model.
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Echevarria, J., Vogt, M.E., & Short, D. (2010b). Making content comprehensible for secondary English learners: The SIOP® Model.
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Edwards Santoro, L. Chard, D.J., Howard, L, & Baker, S.K. (2008). Making the most of classroom read-alouds to promote
comprehension and vocabulary. The Reading Teacher, 61, 396-408.
Fearn, L., & Farnan, N. (2005, April). An investigation of the influence of teaching grammar in writing to accomplish an influence on
writing. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
Fielding, L. G., & Pearson, P. D. (1994). Reading comprehension: What works. Educational Leadership, 51(5), 62-69.
Fisher, P.J., Blachowicz, C.L.Z., & Watts-Taffe, S. (2011). Vocabulary instruction: Three contemporary issues. In D. Lapp & D. Fisher
(Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (3rd ed.) (pp. 252-257). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Lapp, D. (2008). Shared readings: Modeling comprehension, vocabulary, text structures, and text features for
older readers. The Reading Teacher, 61(7), 548–556.
Flannery, K. B., & O’Neill, R. E. (1995). Including predictability in functional assessment and individual program development.
Education & Treatment of Gifted Children, 18(4), 499-500.
Foorman, B.R., Francis, D.J., Novy, D.M., & Liberman, D. (1991). How letter-sound instruction mediates the progress in first-grade
reading and spelling. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 456-469.
Fountas, I.C. (2010). Guided reading with Irene Fountas. HMHEducation.com. Retrieved June 10, 2012 from
http://www.hmheducation.com/journeys/guided-reading.php
Fountas, I.C., & Pinnell, G.S. (1996). Guided reading: Good first teaching for all children. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Fountas, I.C., & Pinnell, G.S. (2001). Guiding readers and writers: Teaching comprehension, genre, and content literacy. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Fountas, I.C., & Pinnell, G.S. (2006). Teaching for comprehending and fluency: thinking, talking, and writing about reading.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Francis, D. J., Rivera, M., Lesaux, N., Kieffer, M., & Rivera, H. (2006a). Practical guidelines for the education of English language
learners: Research-based recommendations for instruction and academic interventions. Houston: University of Houston
Center on Instruction.
Francis, D. J., Rivera, M., Lesaux, N., Kieffer, M., & Rivera, H. (2006b). Practical guidelines for the education of English language
learners: Research-based recommendations for serving adolescent newcomers. Houston: University of Houston Center on
Instruction.
Fretz, E. B., Wu, H. K., Zhang, B., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (2002). An investigation of software scaffolds supporting
modeling practices. Research in Science Education, 32, 567-589.
Fry, E. (2004). 1000 instant words: The most common words for teaching reading, writing and spelling. Westminster, CA: Teacher
Created Resources, Inc.
Fuchs, L.S. (2004). The past, present, and future of curriculum-based measurement research. School Psychology Review, 33, 188-192.
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L.S. (2006). Introduction to Response to Intervention: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research
Quarterly, 41(1), 93-99.
68
Fuchs, D, Fuchs, L.S., & Compton, D.L. (2004). Identifying reading disability by responsiveness-to-instruction: Specifying measures
and criteria. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, 216-217.
Genesee, F., Lindholm-Leary, K., Saunders, W., & Christian, D. (2006). Educating English language learners: A synthesis of research
evidence. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gersten, R., Baker, S., Shanahan, T., Linan-Thompson, S., Collins, P., & Scarcella, R. (2007). Effective literacy and English language
instruction for English learners in the elementary grades: A practice guide. (NCEE 2007-4011). Washington, DC: National
Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U. S. Department of Education.
Retrieved January 31, 2011 from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/practiceguides/20074011.pdf.
Goodson, B., Wolf, A., Bell, S., Turner, H., & Finney, P.B. (2010). The effectiveness of a program to accelerate vocabulary development
in kindergarten (VOCAB). (NCEE 2010-4014). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional
Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Goodwin, A. P., & Ahn, S. (2010). A meta-analysis of morphological interventions: effects on literacy achievement of children with
literacy difficulty. Annals of Dyslexia, 60(2), 183-208.
Graesser, A. C., & Person, N. K. (1994). Question asking during tutoring. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 104-137.
Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools—A report
to Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
Graham, S., MacArthur, C., & Schwartz, S. (1995). The effects of goal setting and procedural facilitation on the revising behavior
and writing performance of students with writing and learning problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 230-240.
Graves, D.H. (1983). Writing: Teachers and children at work. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Graves, D.H. (1991). Build a literate classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Graves, D.H. (1994). A fresh look at writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Graves, M. F. (2006). The vocabulary book: Learning and instruction. New York: Teachers College Press
Graves, M. F., & Avery, P. G. (1997). Scaffolding students’ reading of history. Social Studies, 88(3), 134-139.
Graves, M.F., Cooke, C.L., & LaBerge, M.J. (1983). Effects of previewing difficult short stories on low ability junior high school
students’ comprehension, recall, and attitudes. Reading Research Quarterly, 18(3), 263-276.
Greene, A.H., & Melton, G.D. (2007). Test talk: Integrating test preparation into Reading Workshop. Portland, ME: Stenhouse
Publishers.
Griffiths, A., VanDerHeyden, A.M., Parson, L.B., & Burns, M.K. (2006). Practical applications of Response-to-Intervention research.
Assessment for Effective Intervention, 32(1), 50-57.
Griswold, P. C., Gelzheiser, L. M., & Shepherd, M. J. (1987). Does a production deficiency hypothesis account for vocabulary
learning among adolescents with learning disabilities? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20(10), 620-626.
Grunwald and Associates. (2010). Educators, technology and 21st century skills: Dispelling five myths. Retrieved June 10, 2012 from
Walden University, Richard W. Riley College of Education website:
http://www.waldenu.edu/Degree-Programs/Masters/36427.htm
Guthrie, J. T., Hoa, A. L. W., Wigfield, A., Tonks, S. M., Humenick, N. M., & Littles, E. (2007). Reading motivation and reading
comprehension growth in the later elementary years. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32(3), 383-313.
Guthrie, J. T., Hoa, L. W., Wigfield, A., Tonks, S. M., & Perencevich, K. C. (2006). From spark to fire: Can situational reading interest
lead to long-term reading motivation? Reading Research and Instruction, 45, 91-117.
Guthrie, J. T., & Humenick, N. M. (2004). Motivating students to read: Evidence for classroom practices that increase reading
motivation and achievement. In P. McCardle, & V. Chhabra (Eds.), The voice of evidence in reading research, (329-354).
Baltimore, MD: Paul H Brookes Publishing.
69
 Guthrie, J.T., & McCann, A.D. (1997). Characteristics of classrooms that promote motivations and strategies for learning. In J.T.
Guthrie & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Reading engagement: Motivating readers through integrated instruction (pp. 128-148). Newark,
DE: International Reading Association.
Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and motivation in reading. In M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson, & R. Barr
(Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, 403-422). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hall, T., Strangman, N., & Meyer, A. (2009). Differentiated instruction and implications for UDL implementation. Wakefield, MA:
National Center on Accessible Instructional Materials. Retrieved May 8, 2012 from
http://aim.cast.org/learn/historyarchive/backgroundpapers/differentiated_instruction_udl
Harris, K. R., Graham, S., & Mason, L. (2006). Improving the writing, knowledge, and motivation of struggling young writers:
Effects of self-regulated strategy development with and without peer support. American Educational Research Journal, 43,
295–340.
Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of American children. Baltimore: Paul C. Brookes.
Haywood, H. C. (2004). Thinking in, around, and about the curriculum: The role of cognitive education. International Journal of
Disability, Development, and Education, 51(3), 231-252.
Hegelheimer, V., & Fisher, D. (2006). Grammar, writing, and technology: A sample technology-supported approach to teaching
grammar and improving writing for ESL learners. CALICO Journal, 23(2), 257-279.
Heritage, M. (2007). Formative assessment: What do teachers need to know and do? Phi Delta Kappan, 89(2), 140-145.
Hidi, S., & Boscolo, P. (2006). Motivation and writing. In C.A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing
research (144-157). New York: The Guilford Press.
Hiebert, E. H. (2005). In pursuit of an effective, efficient vocabulary curriculum for elementary students. In E. H. Hiebert & M. L.
Kamil (Eds.), Teaching and learning vocabulary: Bringing research to practice (pp. 243-263). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Hillocks, G., Jr. (1993). Environments for active learning. In L. Odell (Ed.), Theory and practice in the teaching of writing (244-270).
Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Hillocks, G., Jr. (1987). Synthesis of research in teaching writing. Educational Leadership, 12, 71-82.
Hillocks, G., Jr. (1986). Research on written composition: New directions for teaching, Urbana, IL. ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading
and Communication Skills.
Hillocks, G., Jr. (1982). The interaction of instruction, teacher comment, and revision in teaching the composing process. Research
in the Teaching of English, 16(3), 261-278.
Hillocks, G., Jr. (1979). The effects of observational activities on student writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 13(1), 23-35.
Holdaway, D. (1984). Stability and change in literacy learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Hollingsworth, M., & Woodward, J. (1993). Integrated learning: explicit strategies and their role in problem-solving instruction for
students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 59(5), 444-455.
Hornof, M. (2008). Reading tests as genre study. Reading Teacher, 62(1), 69-73.
Huebner, T.A. (2009). Supporting English language learners. Educational Leadership, 66 (7), 90-91.
International Reading Association (IRA). (2010). Response to Intervention: Guiding principles for educators from the International
Reading Association. Newark, DE: Author. Retrieved June 11, 2012 from
http://www.reading.org/Libraries/Resources/RTI_brochure_web.sflb.ashx
Jacobson, J. Lapp, D, and Flood, J. (2007). A seven step instructional plan for teaching English-language learners to comprehend
and use homonyms, homophones, and homographs. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 51, 98-111.
70
Jenkins, J., Stein, M., & Wysocki, K. (1984). Learning vocabulary through reading. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 767-
788.
Jerald, C. D. (2001). Dispelling the myth revisited. Washington DC: Education Trust.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1990). Cooperative learning and achievement. In S. Shlomo (Ed.), Cooperative learning: Theory and
research (pp. 23-27). New York: Praeger.
Johnson, C.I., & Mayer, R.E. (2009). A testing effect with multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3), 621-629.
Juel, C., & Minden-Cupp, C. (2000). Learning to read words: Linguistic units and instructional strategies. Reading Research
Quarterly, 35(4), 458-492.
Kapusnick, R. A., & Hauslein, C. M. (2001). The “silver cup” of differentiated instruction. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 37(4), 156-159.
Kauchak, D. P., & Eggen, P. D. (2006). Learning and teaching: Research-based methods (5th edition). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Keehn, S. (2003). The effect of instruction and practice through Readers Theatre on young readers’ oral reading fluency. Reading
Research and Instruction, 42(4), 40-61.
Kendeou, P., van den Broek, P., White, M. J., & Lynch, J. S. (2009). Predicting reading comprehension in early elementary school:
The independent contributions of oral language and decoding skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(4), 765–778.
Kern, L., & Clemens, N. H. (2007). Antecedent strategies to promote appropriate classroom behavior. Psychology in the Schools,
44(1), 65-75.
Ketterlin-Geller, L.R., & Yovanoff, P. (2009). Diagnostic assessments in mathematics to support instructional decision making.
Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 14(16), 1-11. Retrieved May 6, 2012 from
http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=14&n=16.
Kim, A., Vaughn, S., Wanzek, J., & Wei, S. (2004). Graphic organizers and their effects on the reading comprehension of students
with LD: A synthesis of research. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(2), 105-118.
Kim, J. S., & White, T. G. (2008). Scaffolding voluntary summer reading for children in grades 3 to 5: An experimental study.
Scientific Studies of Reading, 12(1), 1-23.
Kieffer, M.J., & Lesaux, N.K. (2007). Breaking down words to build meaning: Morphology, vocabulary, and reading comprehension
in the urban classroom. The Reading Teacher, 61(2), 134-144.
King, A. (1994). Guiding knowledge construction in the classroom: Effects of teaching children how to question and how to
explain. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 338-368.
Kiuhara, S. A., Graham, S., & Hawken, L. S. (2009). Teaching writing to high school students: A national survey. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 101, 136–160.
Klauda, S. L., & Guthrie, J. T. (2008). Relationships of three components of reading fluency to reading comprehension. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 100, 310-321.
Klesius, J., & Searls, E. (1991). Vocabulary instruction. The Journal of Educational Research, 84, 177-182.
Klingner, J., & Vaughn, S. (2004). Strategies for struggling second-language readers. In Jetton, T., & Dole, J. (Eds.), Adolescent
literacy research and practice (183-209). New York: The Guilford Press.
Kolich, E. M. (1988). Vocabulary learning – what works? Perspectives from the research literature. Reading Improvement, 25, 117-
124.
Krebs, A. (2005). Analyzing student work as a professional development activity. School Science and Mathematics, 105(8), 402-411.
Ku, K. Y., & Ho, I. T. (2010). Metacognitive strategies that enhance critical thinking. Metacognition and Learning, 5(3), 251-267.
Kuriloff, P.C. (2004). Rescuing writing instruction: How to save time and money with technology. Liberal Education, 90(4), 36-41.
71
 Lane, H.B., &Wright, T.L. (2007). Maximizing the effectiveness of reading aloud. The Reading Teacher, 60, 668-675.
Langer, J.A. (1986a). Children reading and writing: Structures and strategies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Langer, J.A. (1986b). Learning through writing: Study skills in the content areas. Journal of Reading, 29, 400-406.
Langer, J.A. & Applebee, A.N. (1987). How writing shapes thinking: A study of teaching and learning. Urbana, IL: National Council of
Teachers of English.
Lenski, S.D., & Johns, J. (2000). Improving writing: Resources, strategies, and assessments. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
Levie, H. W., & Lentz, R. (1982). Effects of text illustrations: A review of research. Educational Communication and Technology
Journal, 30(4), 195-232.
Levin, J. R., Anglin, G. J., & Carney, R. N. (1987). On empirically validating functions of pictures in prose. In D.M. Willows & H.A.
Houghton (Eds.), The psychology of illustration. Vol. 1. (51-86). New York: Springer.
Linan-Thompson, S., Cirino, P.T., & Vaughn, S. (2007). Determining English language learners’ response to intervention: Questions
and some answers. Learning Disability Quarterly, 30(3), 185-195.
Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (1993). The efficacy of psychological, educational, and behavioral treatment. American Psychologist,
48(12), 1181-1209.
Lipson, M. (2011). Why and how we read. In J.F. Baumann, D.J. Chard, J. Cooks, J.D. Cooper, R. Gersten, M. Lipson, L.M. Morrow, J.J.
Pikulski, H.H. Rivera, M. Rivera, S. Templeton, S.W. Valencia, C. Valentino, M.E. Vogt, & I. Fountas, Journeys. Orlando, FL:
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt School Publishers.
Lutz, S. L., Guthrie, J. T., & Davis, M. H. (2006). Scaffolding for engagement in learning:
An observational study of elementary school reading instruction. Journal of Educational Research, 100, 3 - 20.
Lyon, G.R. & Moats, L.C. (1997). Critical conceptual and methodological considerations in reading intervention research. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 30, 578-588.
Mace, A. B., Shapiro, E. S., & Mace, F. C. (1998). Effects of warning stimuli for reinforced withdrawal and task onset on self-injury.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 31, 679-682.
MacArthur, C.A. (2007). Best practices in teaching evaluation and revision. In S. Graham, C.A. MacArthur, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Best
practices in writing instruction (pp. 141-162). New York: The Guilford Press.
MacArthur, C.A. (2009). Reflections on research on writing and technology for struggling writers. Learning Disabilities Research and
Practice, 24(2), 93-103.
Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Marzano, R.J., Pickering, D.J., & Pollock, J.E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works: Research-based strategies for increasing
student achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Mathes, P.G., Pollard-Durodola, S.D., Cárdenas-Haga, E., Linan-Thompson, S., & Vaughn, S. (2007). Teaching struggling readers
who are native Spanish speakers: What do we know? Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 38, 260-271.
Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E. (2005). Principles for managing essential processing in multimedia learning. In R.E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge
Handbook of Multimedia Learning (pp. 169-182). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E., & Gallini, J. K. (1990). When is an illustration worth ten thousand words? Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(4), 715-
726.
72
Mayes, R., Chase, P.N., & Walker, V.L. (2008). Supplemental practice and diagnostic assessment in an Applied College Algebra
Course. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 38(2), 7-31.
McBride-Chang, C., Wagner, R. K., Muse, A., Chow, B. W.-Y., & Shu, H. (2005). The role of morphological awareness in children’s
vocabulary acquisition in English. Applied Psycholinguistics, 26, 415-435.
McCabe, P.R. (2003). Enhancing self-efficacy for high-stakes reading tests. The Reading Teacher, 57(1), 12-20.
McCutchen, D. (1986). Domain knowledge and linguistic knowledge in the development of writing ability. Journal of Memory and
Language, 25, 431-444.
McGinnis, T.A. (2007). Khmer rap boys, X-men, Asia’s fruits, and Dragonball Z: Creating multilingual and multimodal classroom
contexts. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 50(7), 570-579.
McKeown, M.G., & Beck, I.L. (2006). Encouraging young children’s language interactions with stories. In D.K. Dickinson & S.B.
Neuman (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (Vol. 2, pp. 281–294). New York: Guilford.
McKeown, M. G., & Beck, I. L. (1988). Learning vocabulary: Different ways for different goals. Remedial and Special Education
(RASE), 9 (1), 42–46.
McKeown, M. G., Beck, I. L., &. Blake, R. G. K. (2009). Rethinking comprehension instruction: Comparing strategies and content
instructional approaches. Reading Research Quarterly, 44 (3), 218-253.
McNamara, D. R., & Waugh, D. G. (1993). Classroom organisation: A discussion of grouping strategies in the light of the ‘Three
Wise Men’s’ report. School Organization, 13(1), 41-50.
Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2009). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A
meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning,
Evaluation, and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service. Retrieved February 28, 2012 from
http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-based-practices/finalreport.pdf.
Mellard, D.F., & Johnson, E.S. (2008). RTI: A practitioner’s guide to implementing response to intervention. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.
Metcalfe, J., & Kornell, N. (2005). A region or proximal of learning model of study time allocation. Journal of Memory and Language,
52, 463-477.
Moats, L. C. (2001) When older students can’t read. Educational Leadership, 58(6), 36-40.
Moffett, J. (1965). I, you, and it. College Composition and Communication, 16(5), 243-248.
Moffett, J. (1981). Active voice: A writing program across the curriculum. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers, Inc.
Moffett, J. (1983). Teaching the universe of discourse. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers, Inc.
Moffett, J. (1992). Active voice. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishing.
Moffett, J., & Wagner, B.J. (1992). Student-centered language arts, K-12. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishing.
Morris, D., Blanton, L., Blanton, W. E., Nowacek, J., & Perney, J. (1995). Teaching low-achieving spellers at their “instructional
level.” Elementary School Journal, 96(2), 163-177.
Nagy, W. (2007). Metalinguistic awareness and the vocabulary-comprehension connection. In Wagner, R. K., Muse, A. E., and
Tannenbaum, K. R. (Eds.). Vocabulary acquisition: Implications for reading comprehension (pp. 52-77). New York:
Guilford.
Nagy, W. (1988). Teaching vocabulary to improve reading comprehension. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Nagy, W., & Anderson, R. C. (1984). How many words are there in printed school English? Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 304-330.
73
 National Assessment Governing Board. (2010). Writing framework for the 2011 National Assessment of Educational Progress.
Washington, D.C.; National Assessment Governing Board. Retrieved June 23, 2012 from http://www.eric.ed.gov/
ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED512552&ERICExtSearch_Searc
hType_0=no&accno=ED512552
National Commission on Writing. (2003). The neglected R: The need for a writing revolution. Retrieved June 23, 2012 from
http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/writingcom/neglectedr.pdf
National Commission on Writing. (2004). Writing: A ticket to work…or a ticket out: A survey of business leaders. Retrieved June 23,
2012, from http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/writingcom/writing-ticket-to-work.pdf
National Commission on Writing. (2005). Writing: A powerful message from state government. Retrieved June 23, 2012, from
http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/writingcom/powerful-message-from-state.pdf
National Institute for Literacy. (2007). What content-area teachers should know about adolescent literacy. Retrieved June 23, 2012
from http://lincs.ed.gov/publications/pdf/adolescent_literacy07.pdf
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading
and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
National Research Council. (2007). Part IV: Future Directions for Policy, Practice, and Research: 11 Conclusions and
Recommendations. Taking Science to School: Learning and Teaching Science in Grades K-8. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press.
Nelson, J. M., & Manset-Williamson, G. (2006). The impact of explicit, self-regulatory reading comprehension strategy instruction
on the reading-specific self-efficacy, attributions, and affect of students with reading disabilities. Learning Disability
Quarterly, 29(3), 213-230.
Nokes, J., & Dole, J. (2004). Helping adolescents read through explicit strategy instruction. In T. Jetton & J. Dole (Eds.), Adolescent
literacy research and practice (162-182). New York: The Guilford Press.
North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. (2003). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of teaching and learning with technology
on student outcomes. Naperville, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.
Nunes, T., & Bryant, P. (2006). Improving literacy by teaching morphemes. London: Routledge.
O’Connor, R.E., Swanson, H.L., & Geraghty, C. (2010). Improvement in reading rate under independent and difficult text levels:
Influences on word and comprehension skills. Journals in Educational Psychology, 102, 1-19.
Oberjuerge, M. (1999). Raising the bar: Historically disadvantaged students can meet the AP challenge. The History Teacher, Special
Issue: Advanced Placement, 32(2), 263-267.
Ogle, D., & Blachowicz, C. (2002). Beyond literature circles: Helping students comprehend informational texts. In C. Block & M.
Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices (259-272). New York: Guilford Press.
Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. New York: Oxford University Press.
Paivio, A. (1983). Empirical case for dual coding. In J. Yuille (Ed.), Imagery, memory, and cognition: Essays in honor of Allan Paivio
(307-332). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Paivio, A. (1979). Imagery and verbal processes. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Partnership for 21 Century Skills. (2009). Framework for 21st century learning. Tucson, AZ: Author. Retrieved June 10, 2012 from
st
http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/P21_Framework.pdf
Pearson, P. D., & Dole, J. A. (1987). Explicit comprehension instruction: A review of research and a new conceptualization of
instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 88(2), 151-165.
Pearson, P. D., & Fielding, L.G. (1991). Comprehension instruction. In R. Barr, M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.)
Handbook of Reading Research: Vol. II. New York: Longman.
74
Pearson, P.D., & Tierney, R.J. (1984). On becoming a thoughtful reader: Learning to read like a writer. In A.C. Purves & O. Niles
(Eds.), Becoming readers in a complex society, Eighty-Third Yearbook of the National Society of the Study of Education (pp. 144-
173). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Pennington Whitaker, C., Gambrell, L.B., & Morrow, L.M. (2004). Reading comprehension instruction for all students. In E.R.
Silliman & L.C. Wilkinson (Eds.), Language and literacy learning in schools (pp. 130-150). New York: The Guilford Press.
Perez, E. (1981). Oral language competence improve reading skills of Mexican American third graders. Reading Teacher, 35, 24-27.
Perkins, D.N. (1992). Smart schools: From training memories to educating minds. New York: The Free Press.
Phillips, B.M., Clancy-Menchetti, J., & Lonigan, C.J. (2008). Successful phonological awareness instruction with preschool children:
Lessons from the classroom. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 28, 3-17.
Pikulski, J.J. (2012). How do children learn to decode print? In Baumann, J.F., Chard, D.J., Cooks, J., Cooper, J.D., Gersten, R.,
Lipson, M., Morrow, L.M., Pikulski, J.J., Rivera, H.H., Rivera, M., Templeton, S., Valencia, S.W., Valentino, C., & Vogt, M,
Journeys. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Pikulski, J. J. (1994). Preventing reading failure: A review of five effective programs. The Reading Teacher, 48(1), pp. 30-39.
Pikulski, J.J., & Chard, D.J. (2005, March). Fluency: Bridge between decoding and reading comprehension. The Reading Teacher,
58(6), 510–519.
Polette, K. (2008). Teaching grammar through writing: Activities to develop writer’s craft in ALL students in grades 4-12. Boston, MA:
Pearson Education, Inc.
Prain, V. (2006). Learning from writing in secondary science: Some theoretical and practical implications. International Journal of
Science Education, 28(2-3), 179-201.
Pressley, M. (2000). What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of? In M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R.
Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Pressley, M., Gaskins. I. W., & Fingeret, L. (2006). Instruction and development of reading fluency in struggling readers. In S. J.
Samuels & A. E. Farstrup (Eds.), What research has to say about fluency instruction (47-69). Newark, DE: International
Reading Association.
Pressley, M., Mohan, L., Fingeret, L., Reffitt, K., & Raphael-Bogaert, L. (2007) Writing instruction in engaging and effective
elementary settings. In S. Graham, C.A. MacArthur, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Best practices in writing instruction (pp. 13-27).
New York: The Guilford Press.
Pressley, M., Wood, E., Woloshyn, V.E., Martin, V., King, A., & Menke, D. (1992). Encouraging mindful use of prior knowledge:
Attempting to construct explanatory answers facilitates learning. Educational Psychologist, 27(1), 91-109.
Pressley, M., Yokoi, L., Rankin, J., Wharton-McDonald, R., & Mistretta, J. (1997). A survey of the instructional practices of grade 5
teachers nominated as effective in promoting literacy. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1(2), 145-160.
Proctor, C. P., Carlo, M., August, D., & Snow, C. (2005). Native Spanish-speaking children reading English: Toward a model of
comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2), 246-256.
Pulido, D. (2007). Topic familiarity and passage sight vocabulary. Applied Linguistics, 28(1), 66-86.
Purcell-Grates, V., Duke, N., & Martineau, J. (2007). Learning to read and write genre-specific text: Roles of authentic experience
and explicit teaching. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(1), 8-45.
Raymond, E. (2000). Cognitive Characteristics. Learners with Mild Disabilities. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Reading, S., & VanDeuren, D. (2007). Phonemic awareness: When and how much to teach. Reading Research and Instruction, 46(3),
267-285.
75
 Reutzel, D. R. (2003). Organizing effective literacy instruction: grouping strategies and instructional routines. In L. M. Morrow, L. B.
Gambrell, & M. Pressley (Eds.), Best practices in literacy instruction (2nd edition, 241-267). New York: The Guilford Press.
Robinson, D., & Kiewra, K. (1995). Visual argument: Graphic organizers are superior to outlines in improving learning from text.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(3), 455-467.
Rogers, K.B. (2002). Re-forming gifted education: Matching the program to the child. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.
Rogers, K.B. (2007). Lessons learned about educating the gifted and talented: A synthesis of the research on educational practice.
Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(4), 382-396.
Rosenshine, B. & Meister, C. (1992). The use of scaffolds for teaching higher-level cognitive strategies. Educational Leadership,
49(7), 26-33.
Rosenshine, B., Meister, C., & Chapman, S. (1996). Teaching students to generate questions: A review of the intervention studies.
Review of Educational Research, 66, 181-221.
Rousseau, M. K., Tam, B. K. Y., & Ramnarain, R. (1993). Increasing reading proficiency of language-minority students with speech
and language impairments. Education and Treatment of Children, 16, 254-271.
Saddler, B., & Graham S. (2005). The effects of peer-assisted sentence-combining instruction on the writing performance of more
and less skilled young writers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 43-54.
Samuels, S. (2002). Reading fluency: Its development and assessment. In A. E. Farstrup & S. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to
say about reading instruction (166-183). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Samuels, S. J., Schermer, N., & Reinking, D. (1992). Reading fluency: Techniques for making decoding automatic. In S. J. Samuels,
J. Samuels, & A. E. Farstrup (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (124-143). Newark, DE: International
Reading Association.
Santman, D. (2002). Teaching to the test?: Test preparation in the Reading Workshop. Language Arts, 79(3), 203-211.
Scarcella, R. (2007). Accelerating academic English: A focus on the English learner. Oakland, CA: Regents of the University of
California.
Schiefele, U. (1999). Interest and learning from text. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3(3), 257-279.
Schraw, G., Bruning, R., & Svoboda, C. (1995). Sources of situational interest. Journal of Reading Behavior, 27, 1–17.
Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). The effect of reader purpose on interest and recall. Journal of Reading Behavior, 26(1), 1–18.
Schuele, M.C., & Boudreau, D. (2008). Phonological awareness intervention: Beyond the basics. Language, Speech, and Hearing
Services in the Schools, 39, 3-20.
Schuele, M.C., Justice, L.M., Cabell, S.Q., Knighton, K., Kingery, B., & Lee, M.W. (2008). Field-based evaluation of two-tiered
instruction for enhancing kindergarten phonological awareness. Early Education and Development, 19, 726-752.
Schunk, D. H., Pintrich, P. R., & Meece, J. L. (2008). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications. Upper Saddle River,
New Jersey: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.
Sedita, J. (2005). Effective vocabulary instruction, Insights on Learning Disabilities, 2 (1), 33-45.
Shanahan, T. (1990). Reading and writing together: What does it really mean? In T. Shanahan (Ed.), Reading and writing together
(pp. 1-18). Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.
Shanahan, T. (2004). Overcoming the dominance of communication: Writing to think and to learn. In T. L. Jetton & J. A. Dole (Eds.).
Adolescent literacy research and practice (pp. 59–73). New York: Guilford.
Shanahan, T. (2006a). Developing fluency in the context of effective literacy instruction. In T. Rasinski, C. Blachowicz, & K. Lems
(Eds.), Fluency instruction: Research-based best practices (21-38). New York: Guilford Press.
76
Shanahan, T. (2006b). Relations among oral language, reading, and writing development. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J.
Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (171-183). New York: The Guilford Press.
Short, D., & Fitzsimmons, S. (2007). Double the work: Challenges and solutions to acquiring language and academic literacy for
adolescent English language learners – A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent
Education. Retrieved June 10, 2012 from http://www.all4ed.org/files/DoubleWork.pdf
Silver, N.W., & Repa, J.T. (1993). The effect of word processing on the quality of writing and self-esteem of secondary school
English-as-second-language students: Writing without censure. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 9(2), 265-283.
Simons, K. D., & Klein, J. D. (2007). The impact of scaffolding and student achievement levels in a problem-based learning
environment. Instructional Science, 35(1), 41-72.
Slavin, R. E. (1987). Cooperative learning: student teams. Washington, DC: National Educational Association.
Slavin, R. E. (1991). Are cooperative learning and untracking harmful to the gifted? Educational Leadership, 48(6), 68-71.
Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice (2nd Ed). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Slavin, R. E. (2002). Cooperative learning in elementary and secondary schools. In D. L. Levinson (Ed.) & P. W. Cookson & A. R.
Sadovnik (Co-Eds.), Education and sociology: An encyclopedia (pp. 115-121). New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
Smith, E.S., & Johnson, L.A. (2011). Response to intervention in middle school: A case story. Middle School Journal, 42(3), 24-32.
Snow, C. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Snow, C.E., Burns, M.S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, D.C.: National
Academy Press.
Snow, C., & Sweet, A. (2003) Reading for comprehension. In A. Sweet & C. Snow (Eds.), Rethinking reading comprehension. New
York: Guilford.
Spandel, V. (2001). Creating writers through 6-trait writing assessment and instruction. (3rd ed.). Boston: Addison Wesley Longman.
Sperling, M., & Freedman, S.W. (2001). Research on writing. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching, 4th edition.
(pp. 370-389). American Educational Research Association.
Spires, H., & Donley, J. (1998). Prior knowledge activation: Inducing engagement with informational texts. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 90, 249-260.
Stahl, S. A. (1986). Three principles of effective vocabulary instruction. Journal of Reading, 29(7), 662-668.
Stahl, S. A., & Fairbanks, M. M. (1986). The effects of vocabulary instruction: A model-based meta-analysis. Review of Educational
Research, 56, 72-110.
Stahl, S. A., & Nagy, W. (2006). Teaching word meanings. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Stecker, P.M., Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (2005). Using curriculum-based measurement to improve student achievement: Review of
research. Psychology in the Schools, 42, 795-820.
Stevens, R. J., Slavin, R. E., & Farnish, A. M. (1991). The effects of cooperative learning and direct instruction in reading
comprehension strategies on main idea identification. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(1), 8-16.
Stevens, R. J., Van Meter, P., & Warcholak, N.D. (2010). The effects of explicitly teaching story structure to primary grade children.
Journal of Literacy Research, 42(2), 159–198.
Stipek, D. (2002). Good instruction is motivating. In A. Wigfield & J.S. Eccles (Eds.), Development of achievement motivation (pp.
309-332). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Stone, C. A. (1998). The metaphor of scaffolding: Its utility for the field of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31,
344-364.
77
 Strangman, & Dalton, (2006). Improving struggling readers’ comprehension through scaffolded hypertexts and other computer-
based literacy program. In M. C. McKenna, L. D. Labbo, R. D. Kieffer, & D. Reinking (Eds.), International handbook of literacy
and technology, Volume II (75-92). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associations.
Su, Y. (2007). Students’ changing views and the integrated-skills approach in Taiwan’s EFL college classes. Asia Pacific Education
Review, 8(1), 27-40.
Swanson, H. L. (1999). Reading research for students with LD: A meta-analysis of intervention outcomes. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 32, 504-532.
Swanson, H. L., & Hoskyn, M. (2001). Instructing adolescents with learning disabilities: A component and composite analysis.
Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16, 109-119.
Taylor, B. M., Pearson, P. D., Peterson, D. S., & Rodriguez, M. C. (2003). Reading growth in high-poverty classrooms: The influence
of teacher practices that encourage cognitive engagement in literacy learning. Elementary School Journal, 104(1), 3-28.
Teale, W.H. (2009). Students learning English and their literacy instruction in urban schools. The Reading Teacher, 62, 699-703.
Teh, G. P. L., & Fraser, J. B. (1995). Gender differences in achievement and attitudes among students using computer-assisted
instruction. International Journal of Instructional Media, 22(2), 111-120.
Templeton, S. (1989). Tacit and explicit knowledge of derivational morphology: Foundations for a unified approach to spelling and
vocabulary development in the intermediate grades and beyond. Reading Psychology, 10, 233-253.
Templeton, S. (2004). The vocabulary-spelling connection: Orthographic development and morphological knowledge at the
intermediate grades and beyond. In J. F. Baumann & E. J. Kame’enui (Eds.), Vocabulary instruction: Research to Practice (pp.
118-138). New York: Guilford Press.
Templeton, S. (2009). Spelling-meaning relationships among languages: Exploring cognates and their possibilities. In L. Helman
(Ed.), Literacy development with English learners: Research-based instruction in Grades K-6 (pp. 196-212). New York: Guilford
Press.
Templeton, S. (2012). The vocabulary-spelling connection and generative instruction: Orthographic development and
morphological knowledge at the intermediate grades and beyond. In J. F. Baumann & E. J. Kame’enui (Eds.), Vocabulary
instruction: Research to Practice (2nd ed.) New York: Guilford Press.
Templeton, S., & Bear, D.R. (2011). Phonemic awareness, word recognition, and spelling. In T. Rasinski (Ed.), Developing reading
instruction that works (pp. 153-178). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
Templeton, S., Bear, D., Invernizzi, M., & Johnston, F. (2010). Vocabulary their way. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Tierney, R.J., & Shanahan, T. (1991). Research on the reading-writing relationship: Interactions, transactions, and outcomes. In
R. Barr, M.L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P.D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 246-280). New York:
Longman.
Tomlinson, C.A. (1995). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Tomlinson, C.A. (1997). Meeting the needs of gifted learners in the regular classroom: Vision or delusion? Tempo, 17(1), 1, 10-12.
Tomlinson, C. A., & Allan, S. D. (2000). Leadership for differentiating schools and classrooms. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Topping, K., & Paul, T. (1999). Computer-assisted assessment of practice at reading: A large scale survey using Accelerated Reader
data. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 15, 213-231.
Tustin, R. D. (1995). The effects of advance notice of activity transitions on stereotypic behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
28, 91-92.
U.S. Department of Education. (2004). Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Washington DC: U.S. Department of
Education, Office of Special Education Programs. Retrieved June 11, 2012 from
http://idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/,root,dynamic,TopicalBrief,23
78
U.S. Department of Education. (2002). Guidance for the Reading First Program. Washington, D.C.; U.S. Department of Education,
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. Retrieved June 23, 2012 from
www.ed.gov/programs/readingfirst/guidance.doc
U.S. Department of Education Office of the Secretary. (2001). Back to school, moving forward: What No Child Left Behind means for
America’s communities. Washington, D.C.: Author.
Valencia, S. W. (2007). Inquiry-oriented assessment. In Paratore, J. R., & McCormack, R. L. (Eds.), Classroom literacy assessment:
Making sense of what students know and do (pp. 3-20). New York: Guilford.
Valencia, S. W. (2010). Reader profiles and reading disabilities. In Allington, R., & McGill-Franzen, A. (Eds.), Handbook of reading
disability research (pp. 25-35). New York: Routledge.
Valencia, S.W., Smith, A.T., Reece, A.M., Li, M., Wixson, K.K., & Newman, H. (2010, July/August/September). Oral reading fluency
assessment: Issues of construct, criterion, and consequential validity. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(3), 270–291.
Van Keer, H., & Verhaeghe, J. P. (2005). Effects of explicit reading strategies instruction and peer tutoring on second and fifth
graders’ reading comprehension and self-efficacy perceptions. Journal of Experimental Education, 73(4), 291-329.
VanLehn, K., Graesser, A.C., Jackson, G.T., Jordan, P., Olney, A., & Rose, C.P. (2007). When are tutorial dialogues more effective than
reading? Cognitive Science, 31, 3-62.
VanTassel-Baska, J., & Brown, E.F. (2007). Toward best practice: An analysis of the efficacy of curriculum models in gifted education.
Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(4), 342-358.
Vaughn, S., Gersten, R., & Chard, D. (2000). The underlying message in LD intervention research. Exceptional Children, 67, 99-114.
Vaughn, S., Mathes, P., Linan-Thompson, S., & Francis, D. (2005). Teaching English language learners at risk for reading disabilities
to read: Putting research into practice. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 20(1), 58-67.
Vaughn, S., Mathes, P., Linan-Thompson, S., Cirino, P., Carlson, C., Pollard-Durodola, S., Cardenas-Hagan, E., & Francis, D. (2006).
Effectiveness of an English intervention for first-grade English language learners at risk for reading problems. Elementary
School Journal, 107(2), 153-180.
Vermette, P. (1988). Cooperative Grouping in the Classroom: Turning Students into Active Learners. The Social Studies, 79(6), 271-273.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. In M. Cole (Trans.) Mind in society (pp. 79-91). Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Weaver, C. (1997). Teaching grammar in context. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
White, T. G., Power, M. A., & White, S. (1989). Morphological analysis: Implications for teaching and understanding vocabulary
growth. Reading Research Quarterly, 24(3), 283-304.
Williams, J. P. (2005). Instruction in reading comprehension for primary-grade students: A focus on text structure. Journal of Special
Education, 39, 6-18.
Williams, W. M., Papierno, P. B., Makel, M. C. & Ceci, S. J. (2004). Thinking like a scientist about real-world problems: The Cornell
Institute for Research on Children Science Education Program. Applied Developmental Psychology, 25, 107-126.
Wixson, K.K., & Valencia, S.W. (2011). Assessment in RtI: What teachers and specialists need to know. Reading Teacher, 64(6), 466-469.
Wolfe, M.B., Schreiner, M.E., Rehder, B., Laham, D., Foltz, P.W., Kintsch, W., & Landauer, T.K. (1998). Learning from text: Matching
readers and text by Latent Semantic Analysis. Discourse Processes, 25, 309-336.
Zeno, S., Ivens, S., Millard, R., & Duvvuri, R. (1995). The educator’s word frequency guide. Brewster, NY: Touchstone Applied Science
Associates.
Zimmerman, C. (1997). Do reading and interactive vocabulary instruction make a difference? TESOL Quarterly, 31, 121-140.
79
 Lexile® is a trademark of MetaMetrics, Inc., and is registered in the United States and abroad.
Grab-and-Go® and Teacher One Stop™ are trademarks and registered trademarks of Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company.
Destination Reading® is a registered trademark of HMH IP Company.
© Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved. Printed in the U.S.A. 05/13 MS70431

hmhco.com • 800.225.5425

hmhco.com/journeys